Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2002(3) Crimes 130 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Jharkhand High Court)
M.B. Shah and Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, JJ.
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh & Ors. —Appellants
versus
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3821 of 2001)
Decided on 13-8-2002

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :P.S. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, S.K. Sinha, S. Chandrashekhar, Vishnu Sharma, Upendra Mishra, Tathagat H. Vardhan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R.D. Upadhyay, Vishwajit Singh and Tripurari Roy, Advocates.

Very Important point
In exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., 1973 against an order of acquittal at the instance of informant, the court exercises only a limited jurisdiction and it should not constitute itself into an appellate Court which has a much wider jurisdiction to go into questions of facts and law, and to convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 401—Criminal Revision—Powers and Duties of Court—Section 374—Appeal against acquittal—Difference—Sessions Court acquitted the accused—In State appeal against acquittal, High Court dismissed on ground of limitation—On informant’s Criminal Revision, High Court set aside the acquittal on re-appreciation of evidence and remanded the case for re-trial to Sessions Court—Whether correct in law? (No)—Result—Appeal allowed (See paras 12 to 16).
       Held (after referring case law) : 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 was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the informant. (Paras 13 and 14)
       Held also : The High Court has noticed the fact that the State had preferred an appeal against the acquittal of the appellants. That appeal was dismissed by the High Court on the ground of limitation. In principle that makes no difference, because the dismissal of the appeal even on the ground of limitation is a dismissal for all purposes. As observed earlier, the jurisdiction of the High Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is much wider than the jurisdiction of revisional court exercising jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party. All grounds that may be urged in support of the revision petition may be urged in the appeal, but not vice versa. The dismissal of an appeal preferred by the State against the order of acquittal puts a seal of finality on the judgment of the trial court. In such a case it may not be proper exercise of discretion to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of acquittal at the instance of a private party. Exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such a case may give rise to an incongruous situation where an accused tried and acquitted of an offence, and the order of acquittal upheld in appeal by its dismissal, may have to face a second trial for the same offence of which he was acquitted. (Para 15)
       Held finally : For these reasons we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. (Para 16)

Judgment

Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J.—Special Leave granted.

2. The appellants herein were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.193 of 1992 charged of the offence under Sections 302 and 302/114 of the Indian Panel Code. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 21st January, 1994 acquitted the appellants of the charges levelled against them, finding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the appellants was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 22nd November, 1994. No doubt the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

4. A revision was preferred by the informant to the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 6th June, 2001 in Criminal Revision No. 48 of 1994. The judgment of acquittal was set aside and the case was remitted to the Sessions Judge for re-trial in accordance with law.

5. From the evidence on record it appears that an occurrence took place on 20th July, 1989 at about 4.00 p.m. The informant and appellant No. 1 entered into an altercation in connection with removal of creepers which had climbed up to the balcony of the informant. The informant as well as appellant 2 to 5 herein reside in the same building. The altercation took an ugly turn and abuses were exchanged between appellant No.1 and the informant. In the meantime son of the informant, namely Kumud came down and asked the appellants as to why they had not removed the creepers. The case of the prosecution is that appellant No. 1 and other appellants shouted and ordered assault on Kumud. In the assault that followed, deceased Kumud was hit on the head with an iron rod, as a result of which he sustained a serious injury. He was taken to the Bokaro General Hospital, where he was declared dead.

6. The matter was reported to the police. Thereafter the case was investigated and the appellants were put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad.

7. The prosecution relied upon the testimony of three eye witnesses, namely PWs. 1, 3 and 4, who were the mother, sister and father respectively of the deceased. The First Information Report was lodged by PW. 4, the father of the deceased. The prosecution also relied upon the medical evidence on record, which according to the prosecution, corroborated the evidence of the witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge after a consideration of the evidence on record, acquitted the appellants of the charges levelled against them.

8. The State’s appeal having been dismissed, a criminal revision was filed by the informant, PW. 4 under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court.

9. In the revision before the High Court it was sought to be urged on behalf of the informant that there was no reason to discard the testimony of PWs. 1, 3 & 4. The medical evidence on record corroborated their testimony. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence on record, it should have been held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

10. On the other hand it was high-lighted by the appellants that the trial court had recorded its reasons for their acquittal. In the First Information Report a clear allegation was made against appellant No.1 of having assaulted Kumud (deceased) on his head with an iron rod. However, other witnesses in the course of their deposition attributed the assault on Kumud to appellant No. 2, Anuj. The informant also, in his deposition before the Court, changed his version and in line with other witnesses deposed that it was Anuj, appellant No. 2 who gave the blow with an iron rod on the head of the deceased resulting in his death. The medical evidence on record discloses that there were two external injuries only, the first being a lacerated wound over the middle part of the left parietal area and the other being an abrasion on the back of the r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Cases Referred (5)