WAQF INTZAMIYA COMMITTEE MUSLIM SAMAJ, AMBAH Vs. BABUKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.6.2003 passed by JMFC Ambah in Criminal Case No. 462/99, whereby respondent No. 1 Babu Khan was acquitted from the offence punishable under section 294 & 506-B IPC, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) IN short case of the prosecution was that on 12.7.1998 Respondent No. 1 abused the petitioner in filthy language. Upon the complaint lodged by the petitioner case was registered against the respondent No. 1. After taking cognizance and framing of charges and recording of evidence respondent No. 1 was acquitted, hence, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 1 supports the impugned order and submits that the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. In the matter of Thankappan Nadar and others v. Gopala Krishnan and another, reported in (2002) 9 SCC 393, wherein the trial Court had convicted and sentenced the accused person under sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with section 149 IPC, the appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence acquitted the accused persons. In a revision application filed by the de facto complainant, the High Court arrived at the conclusion that although the injured persons belonged to the rival party, that did not render their evidence interested and partisan and that there was no reason for not relying upon their testimony as in case of an attack by a large organised group armed with lethal weapons, local people, due to terror, might be unwilling to testify. The High Court, therefore, set aside the appellate Court's order and remitted the matter to the trial Court for deciding the case afresh. Hon'ble apex Court observed that in a revision petition filed by the de facto complainant against the acquittal order, the Court's jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 CrPC is limited. The law as enunciated by the Supreme Court does not empower the Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence. In the matter of Aklu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 583, the Hon'ble apex Court has observed as under : This Court, however, by way of illustration, indicating the following categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision :