Skip to content


Megho Singh Pamjou Singh Vs. Ahong Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Criminal
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantMegho Singh Pamjou Singh
RespondentAhong Singh and ors.
Prior history
Lakshmi Narain, J.C.
1. This revision petition is flled by a private person Khangembam Megho Singh against the acquittal of the accused in Sessions case No. 5 of 1951 of the Sessions Court, by which they were acquitted of the charge under Section 304, I.P.C. The local Government has not flled any appeal from the above order.
2. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and also through the relevant evidence in the case. There appears to be no miscarriage of justice or gro
Excerpt:
- .....of evidence is no ground for revision against acquittal. ('chotha ram v. mt. karmon bai air 1918 lah 204 (a); - 'pydi ramanna, in re' air 1919 mad 20(2) (b); - 'venkata rao v. padmanabha raju' air 1927 mad 981 (c), relied on).3. it is true that high court can exercise its power of revision on the application of a private prosecution, but where no appeal has been preferred against the acquittal by the local government such an application on behalf of private person should not be encouraged.4. there is no substance in this petition. it is dismissed.
Judgment:

Lakshmi Narain, J.C.

1. This revision petition is flled by a private person Khangembam Megho Singh against the acquittal of the accused in Sessions case No. 5 of 1951 of the Sessions Court, by which they were acquitted of the charge under Section 304, I.P.C. The local Government has not flled any appeal from the above order.

2. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and also through the relevant evidence in the case. There appears to be no miscarriage of justice or gross error in the judgment. The evidence in the case is also not above suspicion. It cannot be said that the trial court has taken a perverse view of the evidence. At the same time misappreciation of evidence is no ground for revision against acquittal. ('Chotha Ram v. Mt. Karmon Bai AIR 1918 Lah 204 (A); - 'Pydi Ramanna, In re' AIR 1919 Mad 20(2) (B); - 'Venkata Rao v. Padmanabha Raju' AIR 1927 Mad 981 (C), relied on).

3. It is true that High Court can exercise its power of revision on the application of a private prosecution, but where no appeal has been preferred against the acquittal by the local Government such an application on behalf of private person should not be encouraged.

4. There is no substance in this petition. It is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //