Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 876

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Honnaiah T.H. - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka and Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1147 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 2021 of 2022)
Decided On : 04-08-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR, Ms. Remya Raj, Adv., Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Adv., Ms. Sajal Jain, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR, Mr. Ashish Yadav, Adv., Mr. Vishal Banshal, Adv., Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv., Mr. Anil V. Katarki, Adv., Mr. Anil C. Nishani, Adv., Ms. Veena Katarki, Adv., Mr. T.R.B. Sivakumar, AOR.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. can be exercised where interest of public justice requires interference for correction of manifest illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of justice.
(2) Revision petition instituted by complainant is maintainable.
(3) Power of revision can be exercised by High Court even suo motu and there can be no bar on a third party invoking revisional jurisdiction.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397 and 401 – Maintainability of revision petition at instance of complainant – Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. can be exercised where interest of public justice requires interference for correction of manifest illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of justice – Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction against a final order of acquittal or conviction, or an intermediate order not being interlocutory in nature – Expression “interlocutory order” denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch upon important rights or liabilities of parties – Any order which substantially affects right of parties cannot be said to be an “interlocutory order” – Rejection of prayer of Public Prosecutor to mark statement as an exhibit would possibly imperil validity of FIR – Order of trial court declining to mark statement of informant as an exhibit is an intermediate order affecting important rights of parties and cannot be said to be purely of an interlocutory nature – If statement of appellant/ informant is not permitted to be marked as an exhibit, it would amount to gross miscarriage of justice – Trial court shall allow plea of Public Prosecutor, in course of examination of appellant, to prove statement of appellant so that it can be marked as an exhibit during course of trial.(Paras 12, 13 and 16)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397 and 401 – Maintainability of revision petition at instance of complainant – Revisional jurisdiction of High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., is a discretionary jurisdiction that can be exercised by revisional court suo motu so as to examine correctness, legality or propriety of an order recorded or passed by trial court or inferior court – As power of revision can be exercised by High Court even suo motu, there can be no bar on a third party invoking revisional jurisdiction and inviting attention of High Court that an occasion to exercise power has arisen – Revision petition instituted by complainant is maintainable – View of High Court that victim/ complainant needs to restrict his revision petition to challenging final orders either acquitting accused or convicting accused of a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation is unsustainable, so long as revision petition is not directed against an interlocutory order. (Paras 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal arises from a judgment dated 20 December 2021 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka by which the criminal revision filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The appellant who is the original informant moved this Court.
Findings of Court:
Trial court shall allow the plea of the Public Prosecutor, in the course of the examination of the appellant, to prove the statement of the appellant which was recorded at 0115 hours on 26 December 2016 so that it can be marked as an exhibit during the course of the trial.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 20 December 2021 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka by which the criminal revision filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The appellant, who is the original informant moved this Court.

3. It has been alleged that a dispute occurred on 25 December 2016 between the accused and villagers of Thoppanahalli village in Maddur, Karnataka on the allocation of water. The dispute is alleged to have led to a series of altercations and culminated in the murder of two persons and injuries to several others, including the appellant. A First Information Report,¹[“FIR”] under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973,²[“CrPC”] was registered on 26 December 2016 at PS Maddur, District Mandya, being Crime No. 0582 of 2016, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 302, 307, 114 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.,³[“IPC”] According to the FIR, around 1830 hours on 25 December 2016, the accused came to the village of the appellant armed with knives and rods, and abused and assaulted some of the villagers. A few of the accused allegedly assaulted and stabbed the appellant, his elder brother, Mutthuraju, and another villager named Nandeesha with knives. The grievously injured persons were first taken to the Government Hospital at Maddur. The doctors at the hospital referred the injured to Mandya District Hospital from where they were further transferred to K R Hospital, Mysore. Both Nandeesha and Mutthuraju succumbed to the injuries.

4. The appellant claims that the FIR was registered on the information which was furnished by him, making him the informant. Upon investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under Section 173 CrPC before the competent court and the case was committed for trial.

5. During the course of the trial in SC No. 82 of 2017, the prosecution examined seven prosecution witnesses.,⁴[“PW”] PW 2, Dr. Chikkaboregowda stated that the appellant and another injured witness were brought by the police to Maddur Government Hospital at 1925 hours on 25 December 2016 and that he had referred both the patients to Mandya District Hospital for further treatment. PW 4, Dr. Manjoj P working at K R Hospital, Mysore stated that the statement of the appellant was recorded in his presence by the PSI Maddur at 0115 hours on 26 December 2016.

6. The appellant was examined as PW 7. During the course of his examination-in-chief, the Public Prosecutor wanted to mark the complaint together with the signature of the appellant as an exhibit. An objection was raised by the defense counsel on the ground that in view of the statement of PW 2, during the course of his examination, the statement of the appellant is referable to Section 161 of the CrPC and cannot be marked as an exhibit.

7. The trial court in its order dated 3 October 2019 refused to mark the complaint on the basis of the statement by PW 2, and on the ground that PW 7 did not depose in his evidence that he gave the complaint to the police. The trial court observed :

“The witness has not deposed in his evidence that he has given complaint to the police. He has deposed that he has given statement while he was taking treatment in the hospital in presence of the Investigating Officer and the Doctor. On the basis of the above evidence of P.W.2, the statement of this witness cannot be marked by treating the same as First Information Report. And, as requested by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the statement of the witness and his signature cannot be marked as ‘exhibit’, since the witness has stated that he has given his statement.”

8. The State did not pursue its remedies against the order of the trial court. The appellant instituted a criminal revision under Sections 397(1) and 401 of the CrPC. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 20 December 2021 upheld the order of the trial court, and dismissed the revision petition on