@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
N.K. Mody, J.
Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.10.2003 passed by the Special Judge (SC, ST), Mandleshwar in Cri. Appeal No. 167/2005, whereby the judgment dated 15.9.2005 passed by the J.M.F.C., Mandleshwar in Cri. Case No. 420/2004, whereby the respondents No. 1 to 8 were convicted for an offence punishable u/s 498-A and 506-B IPC for a period of three years with fine of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 100/- respectively, was set aside, the present petition has been filed.
Short facts of the case are that respondent No. 9 prosecuted the respondents No. 1 to 8 alleging that the petitioner is wife of respondent No. 3 while other respondents are the family members of respondent No. 3. Further case of the prosecution was that marriage of sister of petitioner was taken place in the same family. It was alleged that after marriage petitioner and her sister was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Upon this complaint was lodged by the petitioner against respondents No. 1 to 8 and after investigation challan was filed against respondents No. 1 to 8. After framing of charges and recording of evidence respondents were convicted, against which an appeal was filed, which was allowed and the judgment passed by the trial Court was set aside, against which the present petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that to prove the offence sufficient evidence was on record. It is submitted that the findings of the learned appellate Court in presence of the evidence available of record is perverse and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate Court be set aside and the respondents be convicted. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Madhu Sonkar vs. State of M.P., reported in 2001 (1) MPLJ 384, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has observed that in a case where material evidence has been overlooked by the trial Court, interference can be made in exceptional cases.
Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 8 submits that there was no evidence to prove the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondents. It is submitted that after due appreciation of evidence the learned appellate Court fond that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 8 placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Jagannath Choudhary vs. Ramayan Singh, reported in 2002 SAR (Cri.) 569, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has observed that revisional jurisdiction, to confer upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure neglect of proper precaution of apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case no case is made out for interference hence petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.
From perusal of the record it is evident that to prove the case prosecution has filed the documents which are marked as Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/13 and has also examined PW/1 Omprakash, PW-2 Sandhya, PW-3 Rameshwar, PW-4 Jeevanprakash, PW-5 Onkar and PW-6 S.R. Graval.
In the mater of Madhu Sonkar (supra) the Division Bench of this Court has observed in revision the scope of interference is limited and in a case where material evidence has been overlooked by the trial Court interference can be made in exceptional cases. In sub-Section (3) of Section 401 of Cr.P.C, it has been laid down that nothing in this Section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
It is true that it is open to this Court in a revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not thought fit to appeal, but this jurisdiction should in the opinion of this Court can be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is some glaring defects in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.
Having considered all the aspects of the matter and after reappreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court is satisfied that this is not a case in which this Court may be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal passed by learned appellate Court. The reasons given by the appellate Court for acquitting the respondents appears to be reasonable and are based on evidence. It is well settled that even if on the basis of the same evidence, if other view is possible, the revisional Court will not be justified in reversing the order of acquittal if the same is based on evidence on record and the view taken is a possible reasonable view. In view of this petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and is hereby dismissed.
