GOPAL CHANDRA SAHU Vs. CHOUDHURY BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an informant's revision against discharge of opposite parties 1 and 2 under S.227 Cr. P.C. while framing charges under Ss.302 and 307 IPC against their brother Prafulla Behera.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly stated is that the family of the informant and that of the opposite parties had bitter enmity with each other and in prosecution of such purpose the three brothers Prafulla Behera and opposite parties 1 and 2 came to the house of the informant in the night of 11-4-87 and there Prafulla stabbed the father of the informant as also one Basanta Behera, a mason who was then sleeping in their house and also injured seriously his brother Gokula Sahu and while Gokula Sahu, Gopal Sahu and one Sarat were trying to disarm Prafulla, opposite parties 1 and 2 came running, and opposite party No. 1 snatched away the knife from the hands of Prafulla and both of them ran away. The charge-sheet submitted by police shows the knife to have been washed and thrown away but recovered later on. The learned Sessions Judge on such facts refused to frame charge against opposite parties 1 and 2 there being no material against them involving them in the offence. Mr. Parida, learned counsel for the informant-petitioner, has seriously urged that charge under S.201, IPC was liable to have been framed against both the opposite parties 1 and 2 and that there has been miscarriage of justice in failing to do so. The submission has been contested by Mr. S.D. Das, learned counsel for opposite, parties 1 and 2, firstly urging the lack of any locus standi in the informant to maintain this revision, and secondly there being no tangible material supporting the framing of charge under S.201, IPC against opposite parties 1 and 2.

(3.) So far as the first contention raised by a Mr. Das is concerned, it appears to be without substance. The position of law is now far too well settled that a private informant has a right to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court in appropriate cases where an order of the court has occasioned grave failure of justice. The principles of invoking the revisional jurisdiction by a private prosecutor outlined in AIR 1962 SC 1788, (K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh) reaffirmed in AIR 1981 SC 1415, (Ayodhya Dube v. Ram Sumer Singh) is not of exclusive application only to acquittals in G.R. cases alone, but can be legitimately invoked also at different stages of the trial if grounds for interference in the revisional jurisdiction are otherwise satisfied.