The judgment discussed the scope of revisional power against an acquittal, emphasizing that it should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases to correct a manifest illegality or to prevent gross miscarriage of justice.

Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.

Petitioner/informant/injured being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 26.4.2002 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.1, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1985/14 of 2002 acquitting Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 9 has challenged the same under present revision petition. .

2. While assailing the judgment of acquittal it has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that by way of erroneous consideration of the consistent, trustworthy evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the finding of acquittal has been recorded by the learned trial Court. It has been submitted that learned lower Court wrongly held that delay in dispatching of, receipt of the FIR by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was obnoxious to the prosecution version. To explain the same, it has been submitted that fardbeyan of informant was recorded on 21.9.1983 at about 1:00 p.m. Bihar Hospital by the police official of Bihar Police Station and from there it was sent to Manpur Police Station where it was received on 23.9.1983 and on the basis thereof, a case was registered. Thereafter, the same was sent to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate which was received on 27.9.1983. None of the accused had ever raised any grievance on that very score nor the situation so visualizing in between gives a tip having the FIR antedated because of the fact that it has passed through at least two Police Stations having due endorsement thereupon. It has also been submitted that learned lower Court had dealt with the timing so minutely for the purpose of discrediting the prosecution version which, in the facts and circumstances of the case not warranted because of being the witness peasant and rustic having no specific idea with regard to exact timing, deposed in approximate way, therefore, were not liable to be disbelieved.

3. It has also been submitted that from the suggestion of the defence, it, is apparent that they have not denied the injury over the person of informant rather they stated that it happens to be a self-inflicted injury which they sustained during course of raiding upon them however no counter version happens to be duly brought upon record.

4. Furthermore, it has been submitted that save and except PW 5, Sibban 'Mahto. the other material witnesses Ashok Kumar (PW 1), Suresh Prasad (PW 2), Dwarika Prasad (PW 3), Dinesh Prasad (PW 4) and PW 6, informant him self categorically supported the case of the prosecution. Non-examination of Hajendra who had also been shown to be injured on account of firing made by the accused persons is not at all found to be adverse to the prosecution case on account of examination of trustworthy witnesses including the injured informant who 'have fully supported the case. The non-examination of Investigating Officer was not going to dent upon the case of the prosecution in the background of consistent evidence of the PWs as well as having absence of material contradiction in their evidence. The witnesses by their evidence have pinpointed the place of occurrence, the, manner of occurrence and the genesis of occurrence. On account thereof, the accused persons cannot be said to have found prejudiced.

5. The doctor has not been examined. Therefore, the injury report has been brought upon record by formal witness. From his evidence this much is apparent that injured Mahendra Sao had sustained fire-arm injury which is found completely explained by the consistent, prosecution version.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 9 has submitted that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned lower Court is well reasoned judgment. The learned lower Court had dealt with the evidence of each and every PW in its entirety as well as also took into account the deficiency persisting therein. The inconsistent version of the prosecution witnesses as well as improbability of the event as is evident from the evidence of PW 6. the injured authenticity of F