Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

05.05.2026

1. This is an office reference.

2. Heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, Mr. Shantam Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as Mr. Sudhir Verma, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant.

3. The present criminal revision under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) has its genesis in, and is a direct consequence of, the directions issued by this Court in its common judgment dated 17.04.2014 rendered in a batch of connected criminal appeals led by Criminal Appeal No.883 of 2011 and other analogous matters. The said appeals arose out of the judgments dated 04.11.2011 passed by the Court of the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Raipur in Special Sessions Trial No.47/2008 and Special Sessions Trial No.83/2008, pertaining to the same incident.

4. While partly allowing the aforesaid appeals, this Court undertook a comprehensive reappreciation of the entire evidence on record and, in that process, noticed a significant and disquieting feature concerning the acquittal of one of the accused, namely Ilaram Sahu, who was arrayed as accused No.58 before the trial Court. Upon scrutiny, it was found that although his name did not find mention in the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) and MergIntimation (Ex.P-2), there existed consistent, cogent, and reliable ocular evidence of prosecution witnesses including that of an injured child witness, clearly attributing a specific and active role to him in the commission of the offence. However, the learned trial Court proceeded to acquit the said accused, namely Illaram solely on the ground of non-mention of his name in the FIR and allied documents, disregarding the well-settled legal position that the FIR is not an encyclopedia of events and that mere omission of a name therein cannot, by itself, be a determinative factor for acquittal when substantive evidence on record establishes involvement. The approach of the trial Court, therefore, appeared to be legally unsustainable and indicative of a manifest error resulting in miscarriage of justice.

5. It is in compliance with the aforesaid directions contained in the judgment dated 17.04.2014 that the present criminal revision has been instituted, calling for an examination of the legality, propriety, and correctness of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court in Special Sessions Trial No.47/2008, in light of the evidence available on record and the settled principles governing interference in revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal.

6. Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, submits that the present criminal revision arises out of the common judgment dated 17.04.2014 passed in a batch of criminal appeals led by Criminal Appeal No.883/2011 (Tijau Ram & others vs. State) and other connected matters. It is contended that the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 04.11.2011 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raipur in Special Sessions Trial No.47/2008, committed a manifest error in acquitting accused Ilaram Sahu (arrayed as accused No.58) solely on the ground that his name did not find place in the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1), MergIntimation (Ex.P-2) and FIR (Ex.P-18), despite there being clear and cogent evidence on record indicating his active participation in the offence.

7. It is further submitted by Mr. Shukla that the evidence of key prosecution witnesses, namely P.W.-1 Rajiv Kumar, P.W.-2 Usha Bai and P.W.-3 Kum. Chandni (injured child witness), consistently attributes a specific role to Ilaram Sahu, including causing injury to the child witness inside the house and cutting her hair. His name was also disclosed in the supplementary stateme