MAKAR ROUT Vs. PRANA KRUSHNA ROUT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has come up in revision against an order of the Second Class Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur acquitting the opposite parties who were prosecuted in G.R. Case No. 8 of 1966 on his file on charges under Section 325/34, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case may be shortly stated. On 3 -1 -1966, there was a Panchayat in mouza Uttarasasan to settle up some disputes between Keshab Parida and Parameswar Samal. The Petitioner Makar Rout and three others were invited to the Panchayat to act as mediators. After some deliberation, the Panchayat gave its verdict that one Radha Charan Samal was to be blamed for the incident which formed the subject matter of decision by the Panchayat. Thereafter, the opposite parties who were present at the meeting left the meeting, had a hurried consultation at a nearby place and coming back to the place of meeting rebuked the Panchayatdars on the ground that they were not impartial in giving their verdict. On hearing the commotion, Gobardhan Rout, the brother of the Petitioner came to the spot and intervened. Thereupon the accused persons brought lathis and tentas and assaulted the Petitioner and his brother and also pelted brickbats at them resulting in injuries to the Petitioner, his brother and some of the Panchayatdars. The injured persons were straightaway taken to the Cuttack General Hospital wherefrom the Petitioner sent the report to the Dharmasala Police which reached the latter on 7 -1 -1966. The Police took up investigation, got the injured persons medically examined and submitted a charge -sheet against the opposite parties. The latter denied having committed the offence and it was their case that as Kusa Padhan one of the opposite parties, had filed a case against the Petitioner and others on the allegation that the latter assaulted him, the Petitioner made a belated complaint to the Police. The learned Magistrate after examining the witnesses in this case came to the conclusion that the prosecution care against the opposite parties has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted them. In doing so, he commented on the fact that although the occurrence took place on 3 -1 -1966, the first information was not lodged at the Police till four days thereafter, that in the meantime, Kusha Padhan had filed a case against the Petitioner and others, that the story given by the Petitioner and some of his witnesses in certain respects was discrepant from the story as given in the F. I. R., and that the prosecution evidence is also otherwise unsatisfactory.

(2.) ALTHOUGH the case has been instituted on Police report, the State has not chosen to file any appeal against the order of acquittal. Mr. S.C. Sahu appearing for the Petitioner has mainly contended that the learned Magistrate committed an error of law in treating the first information report as a substantial piece of evidence in as much as he has with reference to the manner of occurrence as stated in the F.I.R. discussed the evidence given by some of the prosecution witnesses and came to the conclusion that there are discrepancies between the two.

(3.) NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that the State has not appealed, it is still open to this Court in a revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, but this jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 1788, observed: