Revision application challenging acquittal in a rape case. The revision bench observed no grounds to interfere with the trial court's meticulous analysis and decision that no case was made out against the accused.
Revision application stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 124 of 2004
------Savera Biwi ….. …. Petitioner Versus
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner :Mr. A.K.Choudhary, Adv. For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, APP
09/07.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 13.1.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No.150 of 1999; whereby the O.P.No.2 has been acquitted in Sarath P.S. Case No.62/1999, corresponding to G.R. No.280 of 1999 from the charges under Sections 376/511 of the IPC leveled against the O.P.No.2
3. The prosecution case in short is that on 28.6.1999 at about 3.30 A.M., when petitioner’s husband went outside to attend natures call, then O.P.No.2 i.e. Manan Mian suddenly entered into her room and caught hold of her. She tried to raise hulla but O.P.No.2 thrusted cloth in her mouth and tried to rape her but in the meantime her husband came there and O.P.No.2 was caught hold by him but after sometime he fled away.
On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Sarath (Chitra) P.S. Case No.62/99 for the offence u/S 376/511 was registered against the accused person and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet for the aforesaid sections. Accordingly, charge was framed against the O.P.No.2 and after cognizance the case was committed
2
for Sessions Trial, however in trial the O.P.No.2 was acquitted.
4. Mr. A. K. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is serious infirmity in the order, inasmuch as, the learned Sessions Court has acquitted the O.P.No.2 though there was plenty of evidence against him but for the reason enshrined in the impugned order the O.P.No.2 was acquitted.
5. No one appears on behalf of O.P.No.2; however learned counsel for the State is present.
6. From the impugned order it appears that the Sessions Court had taken note of each and every aspects of matter and meticulously dealt with the evidence and finally came to the conclusion that no case is made out against the O.P.No.2.
7. In view of the aforesaid finding and looking to the scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court is of the view that no interference is required with the finding given by the Sessions Court. Consequently the instant application stands dismissed.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioner as well as to the O.P.No.2 through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.
11. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim /-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in refusing interference with the Sessions Court's acquittal despite alleged infirmities.
Whether the revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction to interfere with a finding of no case made out.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Savera Biwi
The State of Jharkhand
Manan Mian
DEEPAK ROSHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
