The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is extremely narrow and can only be exercised in exceptional cases where there is a manifest error of law or procedure, and the High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. List has been revised and the case is being taken up in the revised call of the list.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The instant Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2009 passed by learned Sessions Court, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No.161 of 2003, Crime No.137 of 2001, under Sections 307/34 I.P.C., Police Station Imliya Sultanpur, District Sitapur and Sessions Trial No.208 of 2004, Case Crime No.139 of 2001, under Section 25(1B) of Arms Act, Police Station Imliya Sultanpur, District Sitapur, acquitting the accused respondent nos.2 to 4.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court has committed patent error in appreciating the evidence available on record and has acquitted the respondents while it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents are guilty of committing the heinous offence. It is further submitted that the trial court has given much importance to the minor contradictions emerging in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and has completely disregarded that the evidence of an injured person is at a higher pedestal than evidence of other witnesses but the trial court in complete disregard to the settled law with regard to the appreciation of the testimony of the victim has acquitted the accused persons on the basis of minor contradictions which have emerged in the evidence of injured.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. stated that the court below passed the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of the revisionist, in such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.

6. At the outset, it may be mentioned that it is a Revision against order of acquittal and thus, extent and ambit revisional jurisdiction of this Court is quite limited. In Venkatesan Vs. Rani & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2008) decided on 19.08.2013, Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the true contours of the jurisdiction vested in the High Court's under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 while examining order of acquittal passed by trial court and held as under :

''6. 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 decisions rendered in Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju vs. Bonapalli Peda Appadu, Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh, K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P. and Logendranath Jha v. Polai Lal Biswas maybe referred to. Specifically and for the purpose of a detailed illumination on the subject the contents of paras 8 and 10 of the judgment in the case of Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram (supra) may be usefully extracted below.

"8. This Court, however, by way of illustration, indicated the following categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision:

i. Where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the accused;

ii. Where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce;

iii. Where the appellate court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible;

iv. Where the material evidence has been overlooked only (either) by the trial court or by the appellate court; and

v. Where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law.

These categories were, however, merely illustrative