ORDER :

The petitioner has challenged the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2014.

2. This criminal revision petition was filed on 24th March 2015 and as the proceedings would indicate several adjournments were taken on behalf of the petitioner.

3. No notice till date has been issued to the accused who were appellant nos.1 to 6 in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2014.

4. In G.R. Case No.683 of 2007, O.P. Nos.2 to 7 were convicted under sections 323, 385, 504 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, sentenced on each count by the order of sentence dated 25th August 2014.

5. The judgment in G.R. Case No.683 of 2007 was challenged by the convicts and, as noticed above, Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2014 has been allowed by judgment dated 10th December 2014.

6. The learned appellate Court has held as under:

8. “On close scrutiny of the evidence I find that statement of PW01 to PW04 have not supported the case of prosecution. PW06 Bidhan Chandra Das has deposed in the evidence but statement of this witness has not been corroborated by any independent witness examined in this case. PW07 IO has not found any mark of demolition of the culvert. So, I find that prosecution has miserably failed to prove this case.”

7. Mrs. Rajni Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appeal judgment which is under challenge is rendered unsustainable on account of non-consideration of the material evidence tendered by the informant. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the law on the subject is well settled that an order of conviction can be recorded on the basis of evidence of a solitary witness as the Indian Evidence Act does not require evidence of multiple witnesses rather section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act says that no particular number of witnesses is required in a trial to prove a fact.

8. In principle this Court would agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner but for the provisions under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 397 CrPC cannot reverse an order of acquittal into one of conviction and it is only in rarity of cases such power should be exercised and, that too, only by an order of remand.

9. In “Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar” (1987) 1 SCC 288 the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that minute scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties before the lower fora is not permissible and it is only such illegality in law committed by the Court(s) within the jurisdiction of the High Court which can be said to be perverse or leading to manifest injustice and thereby causing miscarriage of justice which would invite exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

10. In “Venkatesan v. Rani” (2013) 14 SCC 207 the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the powers of the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction the High Court cannot do what the sessions Court would not have done. It was held so in the light of sub section (3) to section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which puts a bar on the powers of the revisional Court to convert an order of acquittal into conviction. The aforesaid context keeping in mind, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional powers under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can remand a matter for retrial and that too only in exceptional cases in which it is brought on record that the order/judgment of the sessions Court is patently illegal or has resulted in manifest miscarriage of justice. Putting a word of caution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that “as the language of section 401 of the code makes it amply clear there is no power vested in the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conv