Revisional jurisdiction against an acquittal is limited; a court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the trial court unless the impugned judgment is found to be manifestly perverse, grossly illegal, or results in a palpable miscarriage of justice.

ORDER :

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-complainant has assailed the judgment dated 25.09.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi in Sessions Case No. 14/2005 (3/2005), whereby respondent Nos.2 to 4 came to be acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, as emerging from the record, is that on 11.06.2004, an unfortunate incident allegedly took place near village Joyla wherein a bus belonging to Khalsa Motors, plying on the Falna–Jalore route, after colliding with a jeep, was allegedly vandalized and set ablaze by a mob gathered at the place of occurrence. On the basis of a written report submitted by the complainant Bahadur Singh before the SHO, Police Station Shivganj, a criminal case for the offence under Section 436 IPC came to be registered and, upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. The case thereafter stood committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

2.1 The learned trial Court, after framing charge under Section 436 IPC against the accused persons, proceeded to record evidence adduced by the prosecution. Upon comprehensive appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Court below arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted the accused respondents vide judgment dated 25.09.2006. Hence the instant revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the learned trial Court has misdirected itself in appreciation of evidence and has discarded trustworthy ocular testimony on insignificant discrepancies. It was argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly established the complicity of the accused respondents in the incident of arson and, therefore, the judgment of acquittal suffers from grave illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned trial Court has meticulously analyzed the entire evidence available on record and has recorded well-founded findings based upon sound judicial reasoning. It was further contended that the prosecution witnesses suffered from material contradictions, unexplained improvements and serious infirmities and, therefore, the acquittal recorded by the learned Court below calls for no interference.

5. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced at the Bar and have carefully gone through the impugned judgment as also the entire material available on record.

6. A meticulous examination of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court reveals that the Court below has undertaken an exhaustive and threadbare scrutiny of the prosecution evidence. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the testimony of each material witness and has assigned cogent and convincing reasons while disbelieving the prosecution story.

6.1. The learned trial Court has rightly noticed that the very genesis of the prosecution case rested upon a written report wherein it was specifically alleged that a crowd comprising 50 to 100 persons had assembled at the place of occurrence and had indulged in vandalism and arson. At the inception itself, the complainant was admittedly unaware as to who precisely had set the bus on fire and the names of the accused persons were conspicuously absent in the first information report.

6.2. The learned trial Court has further rightly observed that ma