IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1179 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 3725 of 2023)

RAM KISHORE CHOWDHARY Appellant(s)

VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-State.

The private respondents were acquitted by the judgment and order dated 13.02.2008 passed by the Sessions Court for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324/149, 325/149, 452/149, 427/149, 435/149, 307/149, 302/149, 504/149 and 506/149 of the Indian Penal Code. A revision application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the CrPC”) was filed at the instance of the appellant who was the first informant. By the impugned order dated 12.05.2022, the revision application has been dismissed. Paragraphs 6 to 11 of the impugned judgment are as under:-

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by 6. The incident of this case took place on ASHISH KONDLE Date: 2025.03.20

11:32:25 IST Reason: 6.7.2000. 22 years have gone by since the date of incident and in the meantime, during the pendency of this revision, three accused-respondents had died.

7. On 21.9.2021, learned counsel for accused-

respondents sought adjournment on the ground of his ill health and the case was directed to be listed on 6.10.2021. On 20.4.2022, counsel for the revisionist sought adjournment on the ground of ill health and, therefore, the case was directed to be listed after two weeks peremptorily. Today, again when the case is listed, learned counsel for the revisionist has sought adjournment on the ground of his ill health.

8. Thus, from the facts as stated above, it appears that though learned counsel for the accused-respondents has been unwilling to argue the matter, but the learned counsel for the revisionist has also not made sincere efforts to prosecute the case and he has also sought adjournment after adjournment on one pretext or the other.

9. Be that as it may, as the matter is listed peremptorily today, this Court will not accommodate the request of learned counsel for the revisionist to adjourn the case and has proceeded to decide the matter with the assistance of Sri J.P. Rai, learned AGA and Sri Vivek Shrotria, learned counsel for the accused-

respondents.

10. Learned trial court after considering the prosecution case, evidence brought on record and, submissions of the prosecution and the defence, did not find the charge against the accused- respondents proved under Sections 147,148,323,324/149, 325/149, 452/149, 427/149, 435/149, 307/149, 302/149, 504/149 and 506/149 IPC and acquitted all the accused-respondents.

11. This Court has perused the impugned judgment and order carefully and is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court is not perverse. The impugned judgment and order does not suffer from any error or law or evidence. The view taken by the trial court is a plausible view and, therefore, considering the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC., this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere with the impugned judgment and order taking into consideration that the incident of the year 200 and now we are in 2022.”

Firstly, the Court cannot blame only the litigant, if revision application filed in the year 2008 remained pending till the year 2022. The Court has noted that on 21.09.2021, the counsel for the private respondents sought adjournment on the ground of ill health. On 20.04.2022, the counsel for the appellant sought adjournment on the ground of ill health and again on 12.05.2022 counsel for the appellant sought adjournment on the ground of ill health. In view of these facts, the observations made in paragraph 8 were uncalled for.

From the impugned judgment, it is apparent that the High Court did not peruse