JUDGMENT :

1. Present petition filed u/s 397 r/w section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 12.3.2004 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.143 of 2001, whereby the learned Session Judge has acquitted the respondents accused.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Vipul was staying with the complainant Dipakbhai and was learning silver work from the complainant. That on 9.7.2001, when Dipak and his friend Chandresh came to the house of the complainant, they found the door open from outside and found deceased Vipul lying on the ground. Thereafter, deceased Vipul was shifted to the Hospital, where the doctor found him dead. Therefore, the complainant Dipak filed complaint against unknown persons before Rajkot “B” Division Police Station being I – C.R. No. 453 of 2001.

3. Charge was framed. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the case was returned for recording the prosecution evidence. The prosecution has examined witnesses, as also produced documentary evidence. The learned trial Court having appreciated the said evidence recorded the finding as noted in the judgment culminated in acquittal as stated supra.

4. Hence, present petition.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Nirav Thakkar for the petitioner referring to the deposition of the investigating officer and the recovery of silver, which is proved from the deposition of the investigating officer, would submit that circumstantial evidence suggests that the accused have committed offence, but the learned Sessions Court has failed appreciate this evidence. Learned advocate for the petitioner apart from this, has failed to point out any other submission to inculpate the accused for the charges levelled against them.

6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for the respondents, except respondent No.4, who expired during the pendency of the trial, would submit that almost all witnesses examined by the learned Sessions Court either turned hostile or in their depositions, contradiction is recorded. Even not a single chain of circumstances is proved. He would further submit that the investigating officer could not be considered as witness to prove the circumstantial evidence. The witnesses, who are arraigned as witness for the prosecution have to establish the chain of circumstances. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Sessions Court has not committed any illegality in arriving to a conclusion acquitting the accused. Therefore, it is submitted to this revision.

7. Learned APP, in background of the facts and circumstances, submits to pass necessary order.

8. Before I advert to the points canvassed by the Learned advocate for the petitioner, let refer judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Vimal Singh Vs. Khuman Singh reported in 1998(7) SCC 223, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The relevant para is 7, which reads as under:-

“7. Coming to the ambit of power of High Court under Section 401 of the Code, the High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgments of acquittal passed by the trial Court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial Court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue have been overlooked. These are the instances where the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 mandates that the High Court shall not convert a finding of acquittal