RANJIT SINGH Vs. SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents, Sunder, Gurdev Singh, Natha Swarni, Parkash and Malkiat Singh were tried in the Court of Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, under various sections, including section 307, Indian Penal Code. The trial Court found that the prosecution case was not proved beyond shadow of doubt and consequently acquitted them. The complainant Ranjit Singh has filed this revision against the order of acquittal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the respondents had caused injuries to Chaman Lal, Mohinder, Swarna, Ranjit Singh and Udey Dhan. The grounds on which the prosecution case was considered doubtful by the trial Court are that three of the injured persons, namely, Mohinder, Swarna and Udey Bhan did not enter the witness -box to support the prosecution version that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was not only interested but also contradictory and that the medical evidence also did not support the prosecution case.

(3.) THE scope of revision against acquittal has been discussed in Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh and another, 1968 S.C. 707. It is held in this judgment that there are only two grounds on which the High Court is competent to set aside an acquittal in a revision and to order retrial. They are that there must exist a manifest illegality in the judgment of the Court of Session ordering the acquittal or there must be a gross miscarriage of justice. It has been observed that the High Court is not entitled to interfere even if a wrong view of law is taken by the Court of Session or if even there is misappreciation of evidence. It is pointed out that an interference in revision with an order of acquittal can only take place if there is a glaring defect of procedure such as that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the Court had shut out some material evidence which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence.