The High Court's revisional jurisdiction does not permit converting an acquittal into a conviction unless evident legal errors or miscarriage of justice are demonstrated.

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Date : 04-12-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 21.07.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2017, wherein the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 19.04.2017 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana at Dhaka (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) in Trial No. 1430 of 2017 arising out of Complaint Case No. 561C of 2010, whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused persons (O.P. Nos. 2&3) from the charges under Section 323 , 447, 427, 380, 341 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

3. The brief facts of the case as it emerges from the record are that a complaint petition was filed by the petitioner- complainant alleging that on 01.07.2010 at about 7:00 A.M., three named accused persons, namely Amar Jha (O.P. No.2), Vimla Devi (O.P. No.3), and Ramdeo Jha (since deceased) accompanied by their alleged Maoist associates armed with Khanti and Hathaura, forcibly entered the petitioner’s house and commenced demolishing the dwelling house of the petitioner, which had been constructed with the aid of government funds. When the petitioner, along with his wife and daughter, objected to such acts, accused Ramdeo Jha (since deceased), Amar Jha and Vimla Devi purportedly assaulted them with slaps and fists, compelled them to sit at one place and wrongfully confined them. It is further alleged that the house was damaged and household articles valued at approximately Rs. 30,000/- were taken away by the accused persons. The petitioner asserts that he immediately informed at Kundwa Chainpur P.S. on the same day, but due to the alleged collusion between the local police and the accused persons, no steps were taken. Thereafter, on the same day, i.e., 01.07.2010, the petitioner informed the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran in writing and subsequently submitted a written representation before the District Magistrate, East Champaran on 02.07.2010, but no action was initiated.

4. The petitioner- complainant filed a complaint on 12.07.2010 bearing Complaint Case No. 561C of 2010 before the learned Trial Court, and after inquiry, cognizance was taken under Sections 34 1 , 323, 447, 380, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the three above-named accused persons. Thereafter, the charge was framed under 1 , 323, 447, 427, 380 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons (O.P. Nos. 2&3).

5. The accused persons completely denied the charges levelled against them. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, the complainant- petitioner examined altogether four witnesses, as under:

C.W.s Names

C.W.-1 Renu Jha (wife of complainant)

C.W.-2 Birendra Jha (samdhi of complainant)

C.W.-3 Anmol Jha (son of C.W.-2)

C.W.-4 Lalan Jha (complainant)

However, no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner.

6. The learned Trial Court appreciated the relevant evidence given by the witnesses on behalf of the complainant- petitioner as hereafter.

7. C.W.-1, namely Renu Jha, who is the wife of the complainant-petitioner Lalan Jha, has deposed that the alleged occurrence took place “about 10 months 25 days ago, on a Thursday at about 7:00 A.M.”. She stated that while she and her family members were at home, the accused persons, namely Ramdeo Jha, Amar Jha, Vimla Devi alo