BHARATI NAIK Vs. JAGABANDHU SAHU AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order of acquittal in a case instituted by the State. No appeal has been preferred by the ' State. My attention has been invited to some remarks made by the trial Court in its judgment and it has been submitted that the findings have been based on conjectures and same errors of record. The case depended on the sole testimony of P. W. 1. In order that her evidence was to be accepted, her evidence was to be completely above reproach. On a perusal of the findings recorded by the trial Court and on a consideration of her evidence, it cannot be said that the trial Court completely went wrong in recording the order of acquittal. Even assuming that another and a better view could be taken holding the opposite parties to be guilty of the charges, that cannot be a ground for interference in a revision against acquittal keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases reported in, AIR 1962 5. C. 1788 K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. and jodhya Dube and Ors. v. Ram Sumer Singh.

(2.) I do not find any prime facie case for interference. In my view it is not a fit case for admission. The revision is accordingly dismissed.