Back
1998(8) Supreme 1
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
M.M. Punchhi, CJI & V.N. Khare, J.
Vimal Singh -Appellant
versus
Khuman Singh & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1047 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4023 of 1996)
Decided on 8-10-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.K. Gambhir & Vivek Gambhir, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 2 : Uma Nath Singh, Advocate.
Held : Coming to the ambit of power of High Court under Section 401 of the Code, the High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgments of acquittal passed by the trial Court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial Court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue have been overlooked. These are the instances where the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 mandates that the High Court shall not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, the High Court would not be justified in substituting an order of acquittal into one of conviction even if it is convinced that the accused deserves conviction. No doubt, the High Court in exercise of its revisional power can set aside an order of acquittal if it comes within the ambit of exceptional cases enumerated above, but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into an order of conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order retrial. Infact, sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Code forbids the High Court in converting the order of acquittal into one of conviction. In view of the limitation on the revisional power of the High Court, the High Court in the present case committed manifest illegality in convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part-I and sentencing him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment after setting aside the order of acquittal. (Para 9)
(ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 401(3)-Power of High Court in Criminal Revision-High Court entered into the realm of reappraisal of evidence while setting aside order of acquittal passed by trial Court-Whether correct? (No)-Result-Appeal allowed. (I.P.C., 1860-Sections 302 and 304 Part I).
Held : From the above facts it is apparently clear that the trial Court did not shut out or discard the evidence led by the prosecution. On the contrary, the trial Court assessed the entire evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such acquitted the accused-appellant. In fact, the High Court has entered into the domain of reappraisal of evidence which it was not authorized to do in exercise of its revisional power. Under such circumstances, the order under appeal is not sustainable in law and deserves to be quashed. We accordingly set aside the judgment and order of the High Court dated 5.11.1996 and restore that of the trial Court. (Para 10)
Judgment
V.N. Khare, J.-Leave granted.
2. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.11.96 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereby the High Court, while allowing the Criminal Revision filed by the complainant, Khuman Singh, set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Section 304 Part I, IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.
3. In brief the prosecution case was that on 2.4.87 at about 10 P.M., the deceased Vijay Singh was coming from Khalihan when accused Vimal Singh, the appellant herein, quarreled with him and was said to have given a knife blow to deceased Vijay Singh. Next morning while Vijay Singh deceased, Khuman Singh (P.W. 3) and Narayan Singh (P.W. 4) were going to the Police Station, Satpada in a bus for lodging the First Information Report in respect of the previous days’ incident the appellant who was sitting on the bonnet of the bus got the bus stopped and threatened Vijay Singh not to lodge any report in respect of the previous days’ incident. This led to a quarrel in the bus and in that process it is alleged that the appellant gave a knife blow to Vijay Singh, who died later on.
4. The First Information Report in respect of that incident was lodged at Vidisha by Khuman Singh. Post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was performed by the doctor. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and denied the charge. He also stated that he had not given the knife blow to Vijay Singh during the quarrel inside the bus. The prosecution in support of its case examined number of witnesses. The witnesses who were alleged to be present at the scene of occurrence are, Sumer Singh (P.W. 2), Khuman Singh (P.W. 3), own brother of the deceased, Narayan Singh (P.W. 4), own brother-in-law of the deceased, Shafi Mohd. (P.W. 10), the conductor of the bus, and Nathu Ram (P.W. 13), the driver of the bus.
5. The trial Court after assessing all the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and as such acquitted the appellant.
6. The State did not file any appeal against acquittal of the appellant herein. However, Khuman Singh (P.W. 3) sent a letter to the High Court against acquittal of the accused-appellant, which was treated as a Revision Petition against the order of acquittal and the same was registered as Criminal Revision No. 130 of 1989. The High Court after being of the view that the finding of the trial Court discarding the prosecution evidence is totally perverse and has resulted in miscarriage of justice, entered into the domain of reappraisal of evidence. The High Court after reappraising the evidence accepted the prosecution case and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and held that the appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the judgment under appeal is illegal and nullity as the High Court while setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced him to 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment in total disregard to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’). It was also argued that the High Court has entered into the realm of reappraisal of the evidence while setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court which it was not authorised to do so in view of the settled principles of law in this regard.
8. The legal position as to the powers of the High Court in revision in the matter of interference with the order of acquittal is no longer res integra, as the law in this regard is very well settled. Suffice it to refer in this re
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
