2025:UHC:5284

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No. 320 of 2025

Ved Prakash Saini --Revisionist

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondent s

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Shivam Gulati, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Shubhr

Rastogi, learned counsel for the revisionist.

Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola

Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for State of Uttarakhand/respondent

No.1.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present criminal revision, the

revisionist has put to challenge the judgment and order

dated 17.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Didihat, District Pithoragarh, in Criminal Appeal

No.10 of 2023 State Vs. Praveen Singh Kanyal, whereby,

the judgment and order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the

learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Didihat, District

Pithoragarh in Case No.75 of 2019 State of Uttarakhand

Vs. Praveen Singh Kanyal, was affirmed and the

accused-respondent No.2 was acquitted of the charges

under Sections 323, 353, 332 and 506 IPC.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the

revisionist that there is a cross case filed by the accused-

respondent No.2, in which, a charge-sheet had also been

filed. The learned Courts below completely failed to consider the relevant and connected nature of both

cases, which had direct bearing upon each other. The

revisionist-complainant being a public servant, was

performing his official duties, when the alleged incident

occurred. This important aspect has been overlooked by

the learned Courts below, which would otherwise merit

higher evidentiary value under law.

1

2025:UHC:5284

4. It is further contended by him that the learned

Courts below were unable to consider the fact that there

is threat to life of the revisionist, due to which, he was

unable to join his duty as well as unable to join the

proceedings of trial and further the department of the

revisionist (Rural Development) even not cooperating

with the revisionist. He also submits that the learned

Courts below failed to take into account the plausible

reasons behind the testimony of the key witnesses in the

trial, particularly, the intimidation or influence exerted

by the accused-respondent, who are local residents. The

revisionist-complainant was an outsider posted in the

locality, while the accused-respondent belonged to the

said locality. The possibility of coercion or social pressure

leading to witnesses turning hostile has not been

considered at all. Learned counsel for the revisionist

submits that the medical report has not been considered

by the learned Courts below.

5. I have considered the submissions made by

learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the

judgment and order impugned in the present criminal

revision. The arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the revisionist are totally bereft of merit. The

reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge as well as by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

while passing the impugned judgments and orders, is

quite convincing and needs no interference.

6. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The

respondents have been acquitted by both the learned

Courts below. In revision against acquittal, it is held by

Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that the

Courts should be slow in interfering with the judgments

of acquittal, as the innocence of the accused is further

2

2025:UHC:5284

re-enforced by his acquittal. As the scope of revision is

very limited, unless and until there is perversity in the

judgment of acquittal, the same should not be interfered

with.

7. It is trite law that that while hearing the

revision against acquittal, the power of reviewing

evidence must be exercised with great care and caution,

particularly so when under Section 401(3) Cr.P.C,

expressly prohibits learned High Court to convert a

finding of acquittal into that of conviction. I am fortified

in my view by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Bindeshwari Prasad @ B.P. Singh Vs. State of

Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported in 2002 (6) SCC 650 .

For the sake of convenience, paragraph no.12 of the said

judgment is quoted below:-

“12. We have carefully considered the material on record

and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified

in re- appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a

different conclusion in a revision preferred by the

informant under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides

that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a

High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of

conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a

limitation on the powers of the revisional court, prohibiting

it from converting a finding of acquittal into one of

conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of

the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a

finding of acquittal into one of conviction directly, it could

not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re- trial. It

is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that

the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with

an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the

interest of public justice requires interference for the

correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross

miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified

in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the

trial court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred

in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor

advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in

which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified,

but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters

of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court

under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an

appeal against acquittal by a private party."

3

2025:UHC:5284

8. The learned Trial Court and learned Appellate

Court below had passed an elaborate judgment for

recording the finding of acquittal and this Court does not

want to reiterate the same for the sake of repetition. The

instant case is not one where any such illegality was

committed by the trial court. In the absence of any legal

infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the

trial, there is no justification for the High Court to

interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Learned

counsel for the revisionist could not point out any ground

so as to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed

by the learned Trial Court.

9. For the aforesaid reasons and following the

dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am also of the

considered view that no ground for interference, at all, is

made out in this matter, as there is no illegality and

perversity in the impugned judgment and order.

10. In view of the above, the present criminal

revision is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed in-

limine.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)

23.06.2025

PN

4