Acquittal upheld based on insufficient evidence; revision jurisdiction cannot convert acquittal to conviction without clear errors.

JUDGMENT :

MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, J.

Heard Shri Anjan Kumar Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Suman Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Opposite Party No. 1.

2) Being aggrieved with the Judgment dated 17.09.2008 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C, Baripada, District- Mayurbhanj in Sessions Trial Case No. 14/1 of 2008 arising out of G.R. Case No. 946/2007, acquitting the opposite party No. 2, accused of the case of the offences under Sections 436 /506 of the IPC, the petitioner who was the informant of the case, has filed this revision petition under Section 397 , read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying, amongst others, to quash the said Judgment dated 17.09.2008 in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and to pass such other order or orders as the Court may deem fit and proper.

3) The petitioner contended that the Trial Court wrongly interpreted the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, who were eye witnesses to the incident and that their evidences were not contradicted by the defence in any manner. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the evidence of PW.3 to PW.6 were not properly dealt with, stating that they were the post occurrence witnesses and that they were consistent in their version that the accused was the author of the crime. The petitioner further submitted that there was a tussle between his son and the accused on the night of the incident at 10:30 p.m. that was witnessed by PW.2 and that the house of the petitioner was burnt after two hours of the said incident and therefore, petitioner contended that it can be well presumed that it is the accused opposite party No. 2 who was the author of the crime, where the said presumption was not rebutted by the accused by adducing sufficient evidence. According to the petitioner as the impugned judgment suffers from infirmity, he prayed to quash the impugned judgment, submitting further that the accused should have been punished being the author of the crime.

4) Prosecution's case in brief is that, on 30.08.2007 at night around 10:30 p.m. the opposite party No.2 came in front of the house of the petitioner and abused him in filthy language. During the same, petitioner's son Tarasankar requested the opposite party No. 2 to leave the place. But the opposite party No. 2 showing a ‘katuri’ held by him threatened said Tarasankar, son of the petitioner, saying that he will kill him and shall set fire on their house.

5) Subsequently, in the midnight, the opposite party No. 2 came and set fire to the house of the petitioner situated by the side of the road, saying abusive language threatening the petitioner and his family.

6) With regard to the said incident the petitioner as an informant lodged an FIR at Jharpokharia Police Station, following which Jharpokharia Police Station Case No. 87/2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 946/2007 was registered and the investigation of the case commenced. On completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet under Sections 436 /294/506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baripada, against the opposite party No. 2. The learned SDJM committed the said G.R. Case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada, wherein it was re-registered and numbered as Sessions Trial Case No. 14/1 of 2008.

7) The Learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada transferred the case to the Court of learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Baripada for its disposal in accordance with law.