G SAROJA Vs. SUNDARAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred by P. W. 1 Tmt. Saroja, Wife of the deceased Gnanasundaram, against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thanjavur on 15. 3. 1991 in S. C. No. 49 of 1990.

(2.) THE summary of the prosecution case is that on 2. 12. 1988, at about 6 p. m. , the accused on account of prior enmity hacked the deceased Gnanasundaram with'aruval'on his right side of the head, on his left side of the head, and on the other parts of the body, and as a result of the same, Gnanasundaram died on the spot.

(3.) THE Point:- THE revisional jurisdiction of this Court while hearing a revision preferred by a private party has certain limitations in the sense the power of the High Court is not as wide as that of the court while hearing appeal. Of course the relevant Section that for the purpose of satisfying itself, as to the correctness, legality of proprieties of any finding, sentence or order, the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction. In order to prevent abuse of process of court or where the order of inferior court is manifestly illegal and unjust this Court can interfere in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Thus where there is a glaring departure from the procedure or where there is manifest error of law, consequently there has been flagrant miscarriage of justice, it is open to the High Court to interfere in such matter by exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Normally, a revisional court would not interfere with the finding of fact, but when it is shown that a finding has been arrived without properly considering the evidence, or where it is shown that without applying the principles of law correctly and without considering relevant facts or taking into consideration, irrelevant facts, a finding has been arrived at, even if it be on the question of fact, it is open to the revisional court to interfere with the same. It cannot also be disputed that a revisional court may go into the evidence as to facts where it is necessary to do justice to the parties, because the court below has acted in a manner contrary to well established principles of law; or without any evidence to support the finding; or has arrived at a finding which is perverse; or such as no reasonable man could have arrived at on the evidence produced. In such cases it is open for the revisional court to interfere in such a matter. It is made clear by the Apex Court that such power of interference should be sparingly used especially in case of acquittal passed by the lower court. If it is shown that material evidence has been overlooked, it will also be open to the revisional court to step in. THErefore, in the above context, we have to analyse the case on hand with a view to see whether it is a case where it is not only just and necessary but also imperative to invoke this the proper.