S.S. Dewan, J. - (1.) This Criminal Revision preferred by the private complainant is directed against the acquittal of the Respondents (accused persons). The respondents were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge Ludhiana for the offences under sections 307, 307/34 Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, observed in the jndgment in the following terms:- (i) That no independent witness has been cited for, examined as a prosecution witness in this case in order to corroborate the prosecution version. (ii) That the original incident is shrouded in mystery so far as prosecution is concerned. The events unfolded by the prosecution are inherently untrustworthy and are not within the realm of possibility to talk less of probability. (iii) That there is no suggestion that the injuries on the person of any of the accused could be self inflicted or self suffered. Whereas the injuries not explained by the prosecution cast a great doubt on the truth of the prosecution story and they go a long way in corroborating the defence version.
(2.) On these grounds, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, gave the benefit of doubt to the respondents and acquitted them. Mohan Singh complainant has filed this revision petition against the acquittal of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that these grounds were insufficient to warrant a finding of acquittal. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the submission. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was the final court of fact and the reasons given by him for disbelieving the story are not irrelevant. Because of the acquittal of the respondents, the presumption of innocence in their favour stand augmented. Such a finding cannot be interfered with in revision.
(3.) In case D. Stephens Vs. Nurballa, AIR 1951 S.C. 196 , it was held that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 439 Code Criminal Procedure 1898 is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against the order of acquittal, against which Government has a right of appeal under section 417 Criminal Procedure Code. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of Public Justice requires interference for the correction of 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 mis-appreciated the evidence, on record.;