Uttarakhand High Court
Ved Prakash Saini vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 23 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
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 --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
PREETI
Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331
bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
NEGI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE0
64498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC,
cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.06.24 16:17:30 +05’30’
4