GULZAR CHAMAR Vs. UGGAM CHAMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule is directed against the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Saran acquitting the opposite party of certain criminal charges,

(2.) According to the prosecution case there was a dispute between, Gulzar and Doma Chamar over a nad alleged to have been fixed near the house of Gulzar. On the date in question Mt. Sonia tied an ox and a buffalo to the nad but Doma untied the cattle and drove them away. Mani Chamar again took the cattle and tied them to the nad whereupon Doma fetched a Kudali and attempted to take out the pegs of the nad. Mani Chamar objected and Doma thereupon assaulted him with Kudali on his head. For the prosecution it was said that Nagina and Bamjas assaulted Nathuni who sustained a fracture. The accused also was said to have assaulted Gulzar with lathi who sustained a fracture of the right arm. Chedi son of Gulzar was assaulted with Kudali and his nose and ear were cut. First information report- was lodged at the thana and the police after investigation submitted chargesheet. According to the defence Gulzar and Chedi had made an attempt to forcibly enter the house Of Doma upon which there was an altercation and assault. The accused pleaded right of private defence. The trying Magistrate con victed the opposite party of the charges framed but in appeal the Sessions Judge acquitted the opposite party on the ground that right of private defence has been made out.

(3.) In support of this rule, Mr. Ganesh Sharma contended in the main that the judgment of the appellate Court was not in accordance with law since there is no discussion of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties nor does it contain reasons for holding that the right of private defence has been made out. The argument of the learned Counsel has considerable force since the Additional Sessions Judge has not adequately discussed the prosecution evidence as to how the occurrence took place nor how he reached to the finding that Doma was in possession of the house in dispute and the prosecution party had wanted to take forcible possession of the said house. Even though the complaint of the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner is justified I am not prepared to hold that this is a proper case in which High Court should interfere in its revisional jurisdiction. In the first place, it is important to notice that it was open to the petitioners to move the local Government to prefer an appeal under Section 417, Criminal P.C. No such appeal has been preferred by the local Government and there appears to be no reason why a private party should be encouraged to move High Court directly in revision against the order of Additional Sessions Judge. In the second place, an application in revision by a private party against an order of acquittal cannot be entertained except on some broad ground of exceptional requirement of public justice. See 'GULLI BHAGAT v. NARAIN SINGH', 2 Pat 708; 'SIBAN RAI v. BHAGWANT DASS', 5 Pat 25 and the observation of Jenkins, C. J., in 'FAUJDAR THAKUR v. KASI CHOWDHURY', 42 Cal 612. Mr. Ganesh Sharma frankly conceded in this case that he could not make out a case of exceptional requirement of public justice. In my opinion this application must be dismissed and the rule discharged.