GARG, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision petition has been filed by the complaint-petitioner against the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 7. 6. 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal in Sessions Case No. 34/2000 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge had acquitted the accused respondent No. 2 for offence under Sections 266, 344 and 376 I. P. C.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances:- i) That on 21. 2. 2000, P. W. 7 Bharat lodged a report (Ex. P/13) before the SHO, Police Station, Bhinmal stating that he along with Lata Kumari alias Paru (P. W. 5), aged about 16 years (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) who was daughter of his uncle Amba Lal (P. W. 8), had come to Jaswanpura from Ahmedabad for attending "samuhik Vivah" on 11. 2. 2000 and stayed in the house of Hansaji. IT was further stated in the report (Ex. P/13) that from the evening of 13. 2. 2000, prosecutrix (Lata Kumari) was not found in Bhinmal, on which after making enquiry at Ahmedabad and searching the prosecutrix P. W. 5 Lata Kumari and after informing P. W. 8 Amba Lal, he lodged that report (Ex. P/13) on 21. 2. 2000. ii) Further case of the prosecution is that thereafter P. W. 8 Amba lal lodged a written report (Ex. P/11) on 13. 5. 2000 before the SHO, Police Station Bhinmal stating that the prosecutrix P. W. 5 Lata Kumari returned back to Ahmedabad on 12. 5. 2000 and she had stated that in the evening of 13. 2. 2000, the accused respondent took he prosecutrix after threatening her from Bhinmal to Ahmedabad and where he kept her in a room for three days and thereafter he took her to a village in Madras and thereafter the accused respondent took her again to Ahmedabad and when P. W. 5 Lata Kumar (Prosecutrix) got the chance, she came to her parents on 12. 5. 2000 and during this time, the accused respondent committed forcible intercourse with her many a times. iii) On this report (Ex. P//11) regular FIR (Ex. P/12) was chalked out for offences under Sections 366, 344, and 376 I. P. C. and after usual investigation, challan was filed against the accused respondent for the aforesaid offences. iv) On 30. 8. 2000, charges were framed against the accused respondent for offences under Sections 366, 344 and 376 I. P. C. v) That during the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case and the statement of accused respondent was recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. on 9. 1. 2002 and one witness was examined in defence. vi) at the conclusion no trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge through judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 7. 6. 2002 acquitted the accused respondent for offence under Sections 366, 344 and 376 I. P. C. inter alia holding: i) That the prosecutrix P. W. 5 Lata Kumari was above the age of 18 years and for that he has placed reliance on Transfer Certificate (Ex. D/3) issued by Jai Bharat Vidhyalaya wherein the date of birth of the prosecutrix Lata Kumari (PW. 5) was shown as 1. 9. 81. ii) That the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not place reliance on the statement of prosecutrix Lata Kumari (P. W. 5) and found the case of consent taking into consideration the various factors i. e. her marriage with the accused respondent on 2. 3. 2000 and for that there is marriage certificate (Ex. D/17) and she has remained in the company of accused respondent for about three months. (vii) aggrieved from the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 7. 6. 2002 the complainant - petitioner has preferred this revision petition. In this revision petition, the following submissions have been raised by the learned counsel for the complainant- petitioner: i) That no finding for offence under Section 344 I. P. C. has been given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and therefore, the judgment and order of acquittal should be quashed and set aside. ii) That the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed serious error in relying on the transfer certification (Ex. D/3) and the prosecutrix Lata Kumari (P. W. 5) should have been treated below 18 years of age and atleast case for offence under Section 366 I. P. C. should have been found proved against the accused- respondent. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused respondent has supported the judgment and order or acquittal dtd. 7. 6. 2002 and submitted that the same are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and do not require any interference by this Court and this revision petition should be dismissed. Heard and perused the record. ON POINT OF REVISION IN A CASE OF ACQUITTAL BY THE COMPLAINANT WHERE STATE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Pandurangan vs. S. S. R. Velusamy (1), has observed that revision at the instance of complainant is maintainable.
(3.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Kishan Swaroop vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi (2), has observed that it is open to the High Court in revision to set aside an acquittal order even at the instance of a private parties, even though the State may not have through fit to appeal but this jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is some defect in the procedure or there is manifest error of a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Thus, the law in respect of revision petition before the High Court against the order of acquittal can be laid down in the following manner: i) There can be no doubt that the criminal revision jurisdiction is not to be exercised for the correction of mere errors of law or procedure, however, grave or substantial, the anxiety and the purpose of the revisional Courts always being to correct injustice and not illegalities or irregularities. A manifest error on a point of law or glaring defect in the procedure will not by itself attract revisional jurisdiction and justify revisional interference unless there is a consequential flagrant miscarriage of justice and requirement of public justice to prevent such miscarriage. ii) In a case which has proceeded on a police report, the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked by the private complainant, but it can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chinnaswamy vs. State of A. P. (3), while dealing as to what would constitute such "exceptional cases" has observed as under:- " It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind, which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out the evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the appeal Court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial Court or by the appeal Court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. There and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal. " In light of the above observations, the findings of acquittal in the present case are to be examined on the point whether where is any glaring defect in the procedure or any manifest error on a point of law and further whether such defect or error has resulted in any flagrant or gross miscarriage of justice or not. FINDINGS OF ACQUITTAl ;