The judgment highlights the narrow scope of revisional powers in cases of acquittal, emphasizing that the Revisional Court can only interfere if there is procedural irregularity or if material evidence has been overlooked or misread by the subordinate court.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Ray, J. - The petitioner-informant-cum-injured has filed this revision challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 6.7.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Chhatrapur in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2004/Criminal Appeal No. 172/2003 (G.D.C.) for offences under Sections 326/394, I.P.C. Learned J.M.F.C, Purushottampur by his judgment dated 1.12.2003 convicted the accused-opp.party No.2 for offences under Sections 326/394, I.P.C. in G.R. Case No. 33 of 1999 (T.R. No. 293/99) sentencing him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for three months. As against the said order of conviction, the accused-opp.party No.2 filed Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2004/Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2003 (GDC) before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Chatrapur (Ganjam). The learned appellate Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned J.M.F.C, Purshottampur. Against the said order of acquittal, the informant-injured has filed the present criminal revision.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner-informant lodged an F.I.R. on 12.5.1999 at Purushottampur P.S. alleging therein that while he was starting his Scoter in front of his house, the opp.party No.2-accused came holding a kati and assaulted on his right hand, as a result of which, the petitioner fell down and the accused snatched away one gold chain weighing about one and half tolas from his neck and abused him in filthy language. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet against the accused for offences U/ss. 326/394/294 of I.P.C.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses and the defense examined none. Out of eight witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 are stated to be the eye-witnesses who support the prosecution case. P.W.5 is the petitioner, P.Ws. 6 & 8 is the Doctors and P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer. On consideration of the evidence on record, learned Magistrate convicted the opp.party No.2- accused for offences under Sections 326/394, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the convict is to undergo S.I. for 3 months. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction, the opp. party No.2-accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2004/Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2003 (G.D.C.) before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Chhatrapur. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned appellate Court allowed the appeal acquitting the accused of the charge leveled against him. As against that appellate order, the informant as petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the finding of the learned appellate Court that P.W.1 is a relative and he has not been named in the F.I.R., cannot be a ground for disbelieving the P.W.1 and similarly, P.Ws.2 & 3 are not the chance witnesses and the finding that the evidence of P.W.5 is not supported by evidence of P.Ws.6 and 8 who are Doctors cannot be sustained and it is a fit case to exercise the revisional jurisdiction by setting aside the order of acquittal and remand the case for re-hearing as there has been gross illegality and injustice.

5. Learned counsel for the opp.party No.2-accused has supported the order of acquittal. I have perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate Court. It appears that the learned appellate Court upon reappraisal came to a conclusion different from the one recorded by the trial Court. It is well settled that in revision against acquittal by a private party, the powers of the Revisional Court are very limited. It can interfere only if there is any procedural irregularity or material evidence has been overlooked or misread by the subordinate Court. If upon reappraisal of evidence, two views are possible, it is not permissible even for the appellate Court in appeal again