The scope of revisional powers of the High Court in cases of acquittal is narrow and should be exercised only in cases where the trial court had committed a manifest error of law or procedure or had overlooked and ignored relevant and material evidence thereby causing miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.113 of 2017

This interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 984 days in filing this criminal revision petition.

The learned APP has raised no objection.

For the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No. 113 of 2017 is allowed and delay of 984 days in filing this criminal revision petition is condoned.

Criminal Revision No. 1390 of 2016

Criminal Revision No.1390 of 2016, Criminal Revision No.469 of 2016 and Criminal Revision No. 603 of 2016 have been heard together on the last few days.

2. These criminal revision petitions arise out of Katras PS Case No. 73 of 2005 and counter-case vide Katras PS Case No. 64 of 2005.

3. A First Information Report vide Katras PS Case No.73 of 2005 was lodged on the written report of Smt. Shanti Manjhi alleging commission of offence under sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 149 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code by Mihir Majhi, Nirmal Kumar Manjhi, Smt. Putul Manjhi, Parimal Manjhi, Smt. Mithu Manjhi, Kamal Manjhi, Smt. Sangita Manjhi, Nimai Patra, Phani Bhushan Manjhi, Binod Chandra Manjhi, Smt. Mithu Manjhi, Shyamlal Manjhi, Smt.Shipra Manjhi and Madhav Chandra. This First Information Report was converted into G.R Case No. 758 of 2005 in which the trial commenced vide T.R No.333 of 2010.

4. After investigation, the abovenamed 14 persons were sent up for trial and a charge under sections 341, 323, 325, 147, 148, 149 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against them. During the trial three witnesses were examined – PW3 is the informant. In support of the informant who is the wife of Bhudev Chandra Manjhi her daughters came in the witness box as PW1 and PW2 and deposed about involvement of 14 persons who assaulted their father and mother.

5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad by judgment dated 29th October 2010 convicted the accused under sections 341, 323, 147, 148 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. On the question of sentence, the learned Judicial Magistrate formed an opinion that the accused the majority of whom were female folks and aged persons are the first offenders and therefore benefit under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to them and, accordingly, directed them to execute a bond undertaking that they shall maintain peace and good behaviour for the next two years.

6. The judgment in T.R Case No.333 of 2010 came to be challenged by the accused persons in Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2010 and by judgment dated 27th November 2013 conviction of the accused persons for the aforesaid offence was set aside.

7. The informant has filed the present criminal revision petition against the judgment of acquittal recorded in Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2010.

8. Mr. Amit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court could not have been interfered by the appellate Court on mere non-examination of the injured person and the investigating officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the judgment in “Geeta Devi v. State of U.P” 2022 SCC OnLine SC 57 to submit that the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2010 requires reconsideration by an order of remand by this Court.

9. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel for O.P Nos.2 to 15 would refer to the judgment in “Venkatesan v. Rani” (2013) 14 SCC 207 to submit that in exercise of the revisional powers the High Court is not supposed to convert an order of acquittal into conviction except in exceptional cases.

10. In “Venkatesan” the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

“7. To answer the questions that have arisen in the present case, as noticed at the very outset, the extent and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly in the context of exercise thereof in respect of a judgment of acquittal, may be briefly noticed. The law in this regard is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. Illustratively, as also chronologically, the