ORDER

1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

2. THE APPELLANT HEREIN WAS CONVICTED BY THE TRIAL COURT UNDER SECTION 376 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (FOR SHORT "IPC") AND SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS. 7500 IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. ON APPEAL BEING PREFERRED, THE SESSIONS COURT ACQUITTED THE APPELLANT. THEREAFTER THE HIGH COURT SUO MOTU INVOKED THE REVISIONAL POWERS AND ISSUED NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL BE NOT SET ASIDE. UPON NOTICE BEING SERVED, THE APPELLANT APPEARED AND THEREUPON THE HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION AND HAVING TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN THE ONE TAKEN BY THE APPELLATE COURT UPON THE REAPPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SESSIONS COURT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RECORDING ACQUITTAL AND IT REVERSED THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL AND RESTORED THE ORDER OF CONVICTION RENDERED BY THE TRIAL COURT. HENCE, THIS APPEAL BY SPECIAL1EAVE.

3. FROM A BARE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE HIGH COURT UPON REAPPRAISAL CAME TO A CONCLUSION DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE