After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record as well as the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sheetala Prasad & Ors. vs. Sri Kant & Anr. [(2010 2 SCC 190], in which it has been held that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court; firstly, where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce; secondly, where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible; thirdly, where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused and fourthly, where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence. The present case is not the case of the revisionist that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and the order has been passed without appreciating the evidence, whereas in the present case, the material evidence i.e. the testimony of the sole eye-witness was considered and thereafter, the order dated 02.09.2021 has been passed. In the present case, it is found that there is a specific allegation of catching hold against the revisionist in the statement of the sole-eye witness (Kumari Nisha). The submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist drawing the attention of this Court and the panel report submitted by the team of Doctors will be seen during the trial by adducing evidence, especially under the circumstances when the bail granted to other co-accused persons have been cancelled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court by placing reliance on the statement of the eyewitness (Kumari Nisha).
