Patna High Court
Md Eslam @ Eslam Duniya @ Islam Dhuniya vs The State Of Bihar on 28 July, 2025
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.734 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1129 Year-2012 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C
District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Md Eslam @ Eslam Duniya @ Islam Dhuniya, Son of Late Gulbag Mian,
Resident of Village- Damodarpur, P.S.- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur(Bhabua).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jhakari Shekh Son of Mangaru Miya Resident of Village- Damodarpur, P.S.-
Bhabhua, District- Kaimur
3. Anwar Shekh Son of Late Mangaru Miya Resident of Village- Damodarpur,
P.S.- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur
4. Shakeel Shekh Son of Jhakari Shekh Resident of Village- Damodarpur, P.S.-
Bhabhua, District- Kaimur
5. Illiyas Shekh Son of Jhakari Shekh Resident of Village- Damodarpur, P.S.-
Bhabhua, District- Kaimur
6. Rahamtulla Shekh Wife of Salim Shekh Resident of Village- Damodarpur,
P.S.- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur
7. Guddu Shekh Son of Rahamtulla Shekh Resident of Village- Damodarpur,
P.S.- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur
8. Azad Shekh Son of Rahamtulla Shekh Resident of Village- Damodarpur,
P.S.- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur
9. Munna Shekh Son of Idrish Shekh Resident of Village- Damodarpur, P.S.-
Bhabhua, District- Kaimur
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradhan Murli Manohar Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Abhash, Advocate
Mr. Raju Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-07-2025
The present Criminal Revision petition has been
preferred by the petitioner /complainant against the impugned
judgment of acquittal dated 07.07.2022, passed by learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Kaimur at Bhabhua in
Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2019, whereby learned Appellate
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.734 of 2022 dt.28-07-2025
2/8
Court below has upheld the judgment of acquittal dated
27.06.2019
, passed by learned A.C.J.M-III, Kaimur at Bhabhua
in Complaint Case No. 1129 of 2012, whereby learned A.C.J.M.
had acquitted the accused persons who are Opposite Party Nos.
2 to 9 herein.
2. The present criminal proceeding was initiated by
criminal complaint filed by Md. Eslam @ Eslam Duniya against
Opposite Parties Nos.2 to 9 making allegation of the offence
punishable Sections 504, 448 and 380 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, allegedly committed on 16.09.2012.
3. During trial, altogether following six prosecution
witnesses were examined : (i) P.W. 1- Sayara Bibi (Khatoon),
(ii) P.W.2- Sarun Bibi, (iii) P.W.3- Habiban Bibi, (iv) P.W.4-
Salma Bibi, (v) P.W.5- Md. Islam @ Islam Dhuniya and (vi)
P.W.6- Sakur Shekh. However, no documentary evidence was
adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
4. No witness was examined in defence by the
accused persons/ O.P. Nos. 2 to 9 herein.
5. After trial, all the accused persons/O.P. Nos. 2 to 9
herein were acquitted of all the charges under Section 504, 448
and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Being
aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Trial
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.734 of 2022 dt.28-07-2025
3/8
Court, the petitioner herein/complainant preferred Criminal
Appeal No. 50 of 2019 in the Court of Sessions and the appeal
was disposed of by learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua by the impugned judgment dated
07.07.2022, whereby learned Appellate Court below dismissed
the appeal, upholding the judgment of acquittal, passed by
learned Trial Court, and hence, the present revision petition has
been preferred by the petitioner/complainant against the
judgment of acquittal, passed by learned Appellate Court below
as well as learned Trial Court.
6. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State at the stage of Admission.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned judgment passed by learned Appellate Court below as
well as learned Trial Court are not sustainable in the eye of law
on account of improper appreciation of evidence. Both the
Courts below have erroneously acquitted the O.P. Nos. 2 to 9,
whereas there was sufficient material on record to convict them.
8. However, learned APP for the State defends the
impugned judgment of acquittal, submitting that the judgments
of learned Appellate Court below as well as learned Trial Court
are well reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.734 of 2022 dt.28-07-2025
4/8
and hence, there is no scope to interfere in the impugned
judgment, passed by learned Appellate Court below as well as
learned Trial Court.
9. He further submits that in revisional jurisdiction,
this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, nor can it convert
the finding of acquittal into one of conviction. As per the
evidence on record, the view taken by learned Appellate Court
below and learned Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of
evidence. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed in
limine at the stage of Admission itself.
10. I perused the materials on record and the
judgments passed by learned Appellate Court below as well as
learned Trial Court.
11. Before I proceed to consider the rival
submission of the parties, it is desirable to see the extent and
scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Court. As per the
statutory provisions and judicial precedents, it is settled
principle of law that the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon
the High Court is a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction
under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC in order to
correct the miscarriage of justice arising out of judgment, order,
sentence or finding of subordinate Courts by looking into
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.734 of 2022 dt.28-07-2025
5/8
correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or
order as recorded or passed by subordinate Courts and as to the
regularity of any proceeding of such inferior Courts.
12. However, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction
by the High Court is discretionary in nature to be applied
judiciously in the interest of justice.
13. Under revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is
not entitled to re-appreciate the evidence for itself as if it is
acting as a Court of appeal, because revisional power cannot be
equated with the power of an Appellate Court, nor can it be
treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Hence,
ordinarily, it is not appropriate for the High Court to re-
appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the
same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the
Trial and Appellate Court, unless there are exceptional situations
like glaring error of law or procedure and perversity of finding,
causing flagrant miscarriage of justice, brought to the notice of
the High Court. Such exceptional situations have been
enumerated by Hon’ble Apex Court on several occasions which
are as follows:-
(i) when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction
to try the case or;
(ii) when it is found that the order under revision suffers
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.734 of 2022 dt.28-07-2025
6/8from glaring illegality or;
(iii) where the trial court has illegally shut out the evidence
which otherwise ought to have been considered or;
(iv) where the judgment/order is based on inadmissible
evidence, or;
(v) where the material evidence which clinches the issue
has been overlooked either by the Trial Court or the Appellate
Court or;
(vi) where the finding recorded is based on no evidence or;
(vii) where there is perverse appreciation of evidence or;
(viii) where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily
or capriciously or;
(ix) where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the
offence, which is invalid under the law.
14. However, it has been cautioned by Hon’ble
Supreme Court that the aforesaid kinds of situations are
illustrative and not exhaustive.
15. Here, one may refer to the following judicial
precedents:
(i) Akalu Ahir and Ors. vs Ramdeo Ram
(1973) 2 SCC 583
(ii) K. Chinnaswami Reddy vs State of A.P.
1962 SCC Online SC 32
(iii) Duli Chand Vs Delhi Administration
(1975) 4 SCC 649
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.734 of 2022 dt.28-07-2025
7/8
(1992) 4 SCC 305
(1998) 7 SCC 323
(vi) State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana I. J. Namboodiri
(1999) 2 SCC 452
(vii) Thankappan Nada & Ors. Vs. Gopala Krishnan
(2002) 9 SCC 393
(viii) Jagannath Chaudhary Vs. Ramayan Singh
(2002) 5 SCC 659
(ix) Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh & Ors.
Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & Anr.
(2002) 6 SCC 650
(x) Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam
(2009) 13 SCC 330
(xi) Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
(2012) 9 SCC 460
(2014) 1 SCC 87
(2015) 2 SCC 721
(xiv) Sanjaysinh R. Chavan Vs. D. G. Phalke
(2015) 3 SCC 123
(xv) Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh
(2022) 8 SCC 204
16. Moreover, in revisional jurisdiction, the High
Court is also prohibited by express provision in Section 401 (3)
Cr.PC to convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
However, if it is found by the High Court that finding of
acquittal is recorded on account of misreading of evidence or
non-consideration of evidence or perverse appreciation of
evidence, the High Court can direct re-trial by pointing out such
situations and thereafter, the Trial Court is obliged to re-
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.734 of 2022 dt.28-07-2025
8/8
appreciate the evidence in light of the observation of the
Revisional Court and take an independent view uninfluenced by
any of the observations of the Revisional Court on the merit of
the case.
17. Now, coming to the case on hand, I find that both
learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court below have
discussed all the prosecution witnesses threadbare and
appreciation of their evidence is well reasoned. I find no
perversity in the appreciation of evidence, nor is the judgment
based on any inadmissible evidence, nor any prosecution
evidence has been excluded which was otherwise admissible.
Hence, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned
judgments by this Court under the revisional jurisdiction.
18. Hence, the present revision petition is liable to be
dismissed in limine.
19. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in
limine.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/Shoaib
–
AFR/NAFR A.F.R. CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 29.07.2025 Transmission Date 29.07.2025