- (1.) IN a sessions trial the accused/opposite party Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 who happened to be the husband and the relations of the husband were acquitted of a charge under Sections 498a/304b of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE petitioner who happened to be the father of the victim girl in the instant criminaj revisional application challenged the said order of acquittal.
(3.) THE scope of the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, to interfere with an order of acquittal fell for consideration before a Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising of four Hon'ble judges in the case of D. Stephens v. Nosibolla, reported in 1951 Criminal law Journal 510. Thereafter in plethora of cases the same point came up for consideration before the Apex Court but uptil now the Apex Court has not deviated from the view taken by it in the case of D. Stephens v. Nosibolla (supra ). The law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of d. Stephens v. Nosibolla (supra) still hold the field where the Apex Court held as follows: - "the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Government has a right of appeal under Section 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower Court has taken a wrong view of the law or misappreciated the evidence on record. ";