A SOMU THEVAR Vs. SIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GENERALLY this Court is reluctant to disturb an acquittal recorded by the trial Court, in a revision against such acquittal, that too at the instance of a private party, when the State has not preferred any appeal. However, it becomes a duty to do so, inter alia when incriminating evidence of a satisfactory character is completely ignored or overlooked, and when there is a total misreading of evidence, resulting in an unwarranted acquittal, in order to redeem the course of justice, so that the grave injustice occasioned could be set right. The present is one of such cases.

(2.) THE unfortunate petitioner, who is the father of the deceased a young son of 20 years old, and the first informant examined as p. W. I, has knocked at the doors of this Court, by presenting this revision, challenging the judgment of acquittal in S. C. No. 63 of 1991, on the file of the sessions Court, Thanjavur, in respect of an offence under Section 302, I. PC.

(3.) MR. RN. Kothandaraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took me through the judgment of the Court below, and contended that the findings given by the learned Sessions Judge, for acquitting the accused are perverse, and manifestly erroneous on misreading of evidence, having over-looked various vital pieces of evidence available in this case. In order to substantiate his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out various portions of the evidence adduced in the prosecution and demonstrated as to how the Judgment has caused serious miscarriage of justice. MR. M. Maasco, learned counsel for 1st respondent repelled the above submissions.