The High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into a conviction under Section 401(3) of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

Vide this common judgment, aforesaid two criminal revision petitions, filed by the petitioner, emanating from a common judgment dated 20.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, are being taken up for adjudication together.

2. Present Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed seeking setting aside of the impugned Judgment dated 20.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul (for short 'Additional Sessions Judge'); further seeking restoration of the Judgment and Conviction dated 03.02.2017 and order of sentence dated 07.02.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mahendergarh (Ld. Trial Court) as also to punish the accused persons, in accordance with law.

3. Facts pertinent for adjudication are that the petitioner, being complainant, lodged an FIR No.120 dated 07.08.2013, under sections 147, 148, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ' IPC '), registered at Police Station Satnali, District Mahendergarh, Haryana. In the said FIR, it was alleged that on 29.07.2013 at about 09.00 p.m., the petitioner went to the shop of one Joginder, when a Scorpio vehicle carrying 7-8 boys came there and all of them suddenly opened attack upon the petitioner. The petitioner named-Tinu, Ravinder, Kuldeep, Inderjit, Patwari, Ajay and 2-3 other unnamed boys-as aggressors who inflicted injuries upon the petitioner.

4. Upon trial, all the above-named accused were charged for commission of offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 506 of the IPC by the trial court. The Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Mahendergarh (for short 'trial Court'), vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03/07.02.2017, convicted all the six accused persons under Sections 147 , 148, 323 and 325 of the and sentenced them for a maximum period of 3 years, while awarding separate sentences and fines under all the sections they were convicted in. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

5. The convicts filed two separate appeals in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, against their conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. The first appeal bearing Crl. Appeal No.RT 64 of 2017/2019 was filed on behalf of 05 convicts namely, Inderjeet, Kuldeep, Ajay @ Ajit Singh, Ravi @ Tinu, and Ravinder Kumar, jointly. Whereas, the second appeal bearing Crl. Appeal No.RT 65 of 2017/2019 was filed on behalf of convict, namely, Vikash alias Patwari. The Additional Sessions Judge vide common Judgment dated 20.09.2022, allowed both the appeals filed by the convicts and acquitted all the appellants of the charges framed against them by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03/07.02.2017 passed by the trial court.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, in both the appeals, the petitioner being complainant has preferred these two separate Criminal Revision petitions bearing numbers CRR-647-2023 and CRR-728-2023, before this court. Since, both these Criminal Revision petitions arise out of the same FIR case and trial, wherein the appeals have also been decided by the Additional Sessions Judge vide common judgment, both these Criminal Revision petitions involving adjudication of common issues are being taken up together for disposal.

7. The petitions in hand seek to impugn the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, Section 401 (3) of Cr. P.C., 1973, imposes an explicit statutory prohibition against the High Court converting a finding of acquittal into a conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The seminal legal issue that arises for judicial rumination is the fundamental