D.N. Prasad, J.
1. This Criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 6-10.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No. 45/95 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Set-aside the conviction of the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 5.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.3.1990 at about 11 a.m. One Shyamsnnder Ram/Petitioner along with his nephew Jai Prakash Ram while had been for cutting a branch of Jackfruit Tree, the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5 arrived there and started abusing them and threatened with dire consequences. The opposite party No. 2 Girja Debi pelted stone upon the petitioner, which hit him causing injury. The opposiie party Nos. 2 to 5 also started assaulting the petitioner with fist and slaps. It is further alleged that opposite party No. 4 Nand Lal Vishkarma took away a sum of Rs. 200/- in cash which was kept in the pocket of the petitioner. On hullah, the villagers rush to the spot, thereafter the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5/- accused-persons fled away. The police registered the case for the offence under Sections 341/323/448/337/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet.
3. All the accused-persons/ Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 5 appeared in thecourt below and the charge was also framed which was explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty. The witnesses were examined in the court below, After hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused-persons/opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5 under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 341/34 of the I.P.C. as well as under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. On being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the accused-persons/Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 5 preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge who set-aside the judgment of conviction and sentenced by the impugned judgment in appeal dated 6.10.1997.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned appellate court committed error in acquitting the accused-per-sons/Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 5 and he has not considered the evidence adduced in the Court below. It is also submitted that the doctor who examined the injured has proved the injury report marked as Ext. 2 which has not been considered by the appellate Court and as such the 'im pugned judgment passed by the appellate court is fit to be set-aside.
5-A. On the other hand, it is submitted that there is no illegality is the impugned judgment passed by the appellate court and there was vital contradictions found in the evidence of PWs. It is also submitted that Girja Devi against whom there was an allegation for assault, was not convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court rather she has been convicted under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code which is also not in accordance with law. Moreover, the doctor, admitted in his evidence that such injury may be caused by fall and the said injury is simple and superficial in nature. It is also submitted that the private party has no right to file revision in the case instituted upon the police report. The learned Counsel relied upon a case reported in AIR 1998 SC 990.
6. PW 1 is admittedly Nephew of the informant. The Doctor, PW 6, said to have examined the injured and found some simple injury but he also clarified in his evidence that such injury may be caused by fall.
7. PW 5, informant, claimed the said land on which the jack fruit tree was standing and he stated that the said land was purchased by the vendor of the informant in auction but it is clear from ext. 4 that it is a Raiyati patta and not a sale deed which was executed by ex-Gyan-nand Ram in favour of Shyamsunder Ram and Shyamshankar Ram. It may be noted here that none of the witnesses stated that the informant, PW 5 was actually assaulted by all the accused-persons, except Girja Devi with fist and slaps. There also appears much contradictions in the evidence of PWs as regards to the allegation of theft of a sum of Rs. 200/-. It appears from the evidence of PW 6 Doctor, that the informant Shyam Sundar was examined and he sustained three injuries which is as follows :
(i) An area of abression over left wrist.
(ii) An area of abression below the right left knee.
(iii) Vague pain over the chest.
The aforesaid injuries said to be simple and superficial in nature. The doctor also opined that such injury may be caused by fall. The prosecution has claimed title over the land on the basis of sale deed but admittedly the land in question was recorded in the name of Kishun Singh, vide Ext. A.
8. On going through the evidence collected in course of trial, it is apparent that there is much contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses which makes the whole prosecution case doubtful and for which the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. There is no scope in exercising powers of revision in a case of acquittal when there is no vital or material illegality or impropriety in the finding. The scope is very limited in such type of, case. The appellate court hasanalysed the evidence and also considered all the aspect of the case which does not require to be interfered.
9. In the result, I find that the learned appellate court has rightly passed the judgment acquitting the accused persons/opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5 as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused-persons beyond all reasonable doubts as required under law. Thus, I do not find any merit in the revision application which is accordingly dismissed.
10. Revisional dismissed.