Revision Jurisdiction of High Court against Acquittal when invoked at the instance of Private is very Limited by CrPC and Catena of Apex Court Judgments.
Revision court can set aside an order of acquittal and remit the case for retrial where the trial court overlooking material evidence has passed the order.....Held by Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Briksh Singh & Ors vs Ambika Yadav & Anr on 9 March, 2004
In a Murder case Accused is acquitted in benefit of doubt for the reason eye witness turned hostile, some errors in the witness of panchanama in Recovery of Weapons and vehicle involved in accident.
Now the revision petition is filed by the private parties against judgment of acquittal in the following grounds.
1. Trial Court had not taken the evidence of prosecution witness who supported the strong Motive which was corroborated by one of other prosecution witness during chief examination and cross examination. Trial Court not appreciated the evidence at all in the reasoning part.
2. Identification Parade was conducted before Judicial magistrate where two eye witness identified all the accused. Prosecution had failed to bring the evidence during Trial as Judicial magistrate was gone for throat operation. Report of Identification Report was merely annexed as a document but nothing referred in the judgment.
3. Car involved for the Murder belonged to Accused which was not raised any where during the Trial and the issue was not decided.
4. Recovery of Weapons was done at the instance of Accused along with two Panchanama witness among one being VAO by Investigation Officer. Investigation Officer had perfectly withstood the cross examination done minutely. Only one Panchanama Witness which was cross examined had done some mistakes and the other Panchanama Witness was not produced by prosecution.
5. Forensic Report, Blood Groping was merely annexed as document without referring anything about it in the Judgment Part.
6. Further one of the Prosecution witness who is the wife of the deceased had supported her Section 161 CrPC statement by deposing in the court that one week before the incident accused had threatened in phone that he would murder her husband. But the high Court had not appraised this aspect.
7. Many witness in favor of prosecution was not purposefully brought to trial by the Public Prosecutor. Public Prosecutors in the way he conducted the case in the most prima facie careless manner seems that he was corrupted by accused.
8. Now, the wife of deceased had filed revision before High Court including the accused and Government prosecution as the party.
9. After committing the Murder, there were evidence which established the after conduct of accused under Section 8 of Evidence Act in the way he grabbed the most of their property in illegal manner.
In Such Circumstance ,
1. Whether in facts and circumstance in the limited scope of revision Jurisdiction in High Court, the order of acquittal could be set aside and the case could be ordered for Retrial in the complete aspects of this case?
2. Whether the mistake of Public prosecutor would not have any effect in revision filed by the victim family because it was the entire brutal mistake of prosecution for which victim would not suffer?
3. Whether subsequent conduct of accused from the day of Murder to this day which reveals prima facie the motive which when corroborated with his confession statement before police under Section 27 of Evidence Act could be proved in evidence?
