1. Conviction under Section 411, IPC — Recovery of stolen ornaments based on accused's statement — Acquittal by appeal court on grounds of inadmissibility of evidence. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 247
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th July, 1962.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
K. Chinnaswamy Reddy, Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. P. Ram Reddy, Advocate, for Appellant; M/s. K. R. Chaudhuri and P. D. Menon, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1; Mr. K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2.
Advocates:
K.R.CHAUDHARY, P.D.MENON, P.RAM REDDY
K.R.CHAUDHARY, P.D.MENON, P.RAM REDDY
Revisional jurisdiction to set aside an acquittal is limited to exceptional cases. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, statements relating distinctly to the discovery of a fact are admissible, even if confessional, provided they do not relate to the past history of the crime.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Section 439(1) and 439(4) - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court - Interference with order of acquittal - Revisional jurisdiction is not to be lightly exercised when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal. It can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. Section 439(4) specifically forbids the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, and this prohibition extends to doing so indirectly by ordering a retrial based on a re-appraisal of evidence. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 7)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Admissibility of information leading to discovery - Only that part of the statement which relates distinctly to the discovery is admissible, whether it amounts to a confession or not. A statement that the accused "would show the place where he had hidden" the objects is admissible in its entirety as it relates distinctly to the actual discovery and does not constitute information as to the past history of the object or the crime. (Paras 9, 10)
(C) Criminal Procedure - Remedy for wrongful exclusion of evidence - Where a trial court has admitted evidence but the appeal court has wrongly held such evidence to be inadmissible, the proper course for the High Court in revision is to direct the appeal court to re-hear the appeal rather than ordering a full retrial by the trial court. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
An accused was convicted of possessing stolen ornaments recovered from a garden based on his statement. The appellate court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused, ruling that the part of the statement where the accused claimed he had hidden the ornaments was inadmissible, and therefore possession was not proved. The High Court, in a revision petition filed by a private party, set aside the acquittal and ordered a retrial.
Findings of Court:
The statement "where he had hidden them" is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as it relates distinctly to the discovery of the ornaments. The High Court was justified in interfering with the acquittal because relevant evidence was wrongly ruled out. However, the High Court erred by conducting a detailed appraisal of evidence in its judgment, which would prejudice the accused during a retrial.
Issues: Whether the High Court can order a retrial in revision to indirectly convert an acquittal into a conviction; whether the phrase "where he had hidden them" is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act; and whether a retrial or a re-hearing of the appeal is the appropriate remedy when an appellate court wrongly excludes evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction to set aside an acquittal is limited to exceptional cases of manifest illegality. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, statements relating distinctly to the discovery of a fact are admissible even if confessional, provided they do not relate to the past history of the crime. When an appellate court wrongly excludes evidence admitted by the trial court, the case should be remanded to the appellate court for re-hearing.
Result: Appeal allowed, Rehearing ordered.
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The appeal was against the High Court's order to remand the case for a retrial, following an acquittal by the trial court. The appellant challenged this on the grounds that the High Court's intervention was not justified, especially since it was a revision by a private party and no exceptional circumstances were present to warrant interference (!) (!) .
-
The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with an order of acquittal in revision is limited. It should only do so in exceptional cases where there is a manifest legal error, procedural defect, or a gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court should avoid re-evaluating evidence in detail when ordering a retrial unless certain specific conditions are met (!) (!) (!) .
-
The High Court's detailed re-examination of evidence was deemed inappropriate, especially when the case was to be remanded for a re-hearing. The proper course in such cases is to direct the appellate or trial court to re-hear the case without re-assessing the evidence previously considered inadmissible or improperly excluded (!) (!) .
-
The admissibility of statements made by the accused under the Evidence Act hinges on whether the statement relates distinctly to the fact discovered, particularly in relation to the recovery of evidence. The entire statement that the accused would show the place where the ornaments were hidden is considered admissible, as it directly relates to the discovery process, and excising part of it would render the remaining statement meaningless (!) (!) .
-
When evidence is improperly excluded or ruled inadmissible by the appellate court, but was admitted by the trial court, the appropriate remedy is to remand the case for re-hearing, allowing the appellate court to consider the evidence properly. This approach ensures the case is decided on the complete and correct evidentiary record (!) (!) .
-
The Court emphasized that the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction only in exceptional circumstances, such as procedural irregularities or legal errors, and should refrain from indirectly converting an acquittal into a conviction through procedural maneuvers like ordering a retrial (!) (!) (!) .
-
The Court ultimately allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order of retrial, and directed that both the appellant and the other accused be re-heard on appeal, considering the evidence that was previously excluded. The appellate court is to re-examine the case without influence from the earlier observations, ensuring a fair and proper evaluation of the evidence (!) (!) .
-
The decision underscores the importance of limiting the scope of revisionary powers to prevent misuse and emphasizes that the appellate and trial courts should re-hear cases when evidence has been improperly excluded, rather than re-assessing evidence in detail during a revision process.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences involving property
- dishonestly receiving stolen property (Para 1)
-
offences involving property
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Revisional jurisdiction of High Court under Section 439, CrPC — Interference with acquittal by private party — Prohibition against converting acquittal into conviction via indirect retrial. (Para 3 )
3. High Court's revisional power to set aside acquittal is limited to exceptional cases involving manifest illegality or flagrant miscarriage of justice, such as wrongly ruling out admissible evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Statements under Section 27, Evidence Act, relating distinctly to the discovery of a fact are admissible, regardless of whether they amount to a confession of possession. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order of High Court modified — Appeal court directed to re-hear the appeal after considering the evidence previously ruled inadmissible. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. When can a High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 439, CrPC, to interfere with an order of acquittal invoked by a private party?
Such jurisdiction is exercised only in exceptional cases where public justice requires interference to correct a manifest illegality or prevent a gross miscarriage of justice, such as when the trial court lacked jurisdiction or wrongly ruled out admissible evidence. (Para 4 , 7 )
7. Does Section 439(4), CrPC, prohibit a High Court from ordering a retrial after setting aside an acquittal?
Section 439(4) forbids converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The court cannot do this indirectly by ordering a retrial unless the case falls within exceptional circumstances, such as the exclusion of relevant admissible evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
8. What extent of a statement made by an accused in custody is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Only the part of the information that relates distinctly to the fact discovered is admissible. This includes the place of discovery and the accused's knowledge of it, even if the statement is confessional in nature. (Para 9 , 10 )
9. Is a statement that an accused hid an object admissible under Section 27, Evidence Act, if it implies possession?
Yes, because words indicating where an object was hidden relate distinctly to the actual discovery and do not describe the past history of the crime, unlike statements regarding the use of a weapon. (Para 10 )
10. What is the proper course for a High Court when an appeal court has wrongly ruled out evidence that was admitted by the trial court?
The High Court may either order a retrial by the trial court or direct the appeal court to re-hear the appeal after taking into account the evidence previously ruled inadmissible. (Para 11 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appellant was convicted under S. 411 of the Indian Penal Code by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Kurnool. Along with him another person Hussain Saheb was also tried and was convicted under Ss. 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The case for the prosecution briefly was that the house of Ramayya in Dudyla was burgled on the night of April 20, 1957. Ramayya and his wife were sleeping outside and on waking in the morning they found that the house had been burgled and valuable property stolen. The matter was reported to the police and during the course of investigation the police recovered 17 ornaments on the information given by the appellant. The other accused had also given information on the basis of which another stolen ornament was recovered. The Assistant Sessions Judge on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the other accused had actually committed house breaking and had removed ornaments from the house of Ramayya and had handed over 17 ornaments out of that properly to the appellant. He also came to the conclusion that the seventeen ornaments recovered at the instance of the appellant were in his possession and he, therefore, found him guilty under S. 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant and the other accused went in appeal to the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge held that the appellant had not been proved to be in possession of the seventeen ornaments which were recovered at his instance from a garden. The statement of the appellant in this respect was that "he would show the place where he had hidden them (the ornaments)". Thereafter he went to the garden and dug out two bundles containing the seventeen ornaments from there. The Sessions Judge held that the recovery of ornaments from the garden at the instance of the appellant was proved; but he further held that that part of the statement of the appellant where he said that he had hidden the ornaments as not admissible in evidence. Therefore, he took the view that as the ornaments were recovered from a place which was accessible to all and sundry and there was no other evidence to show that the appellant had hidden them, it could not be held that the ornaments were in the appellant s possession. He therefore gave the benefit of doubt to the a appellant and ordered his acquittal. He also acquited the other accused at whose instance one of the stolen ornaments was recovered. This accused had stated that he had given the ornaments to Bada Sab (P. W. 5) and took the police party to Bada Sab and asked him to return the ornaments, which Bada Sab did. The Sessions Judge, however, on a consideration of the evidence against the other accused thought that the case against him was also doubtful and ordered his acquittal, though he ordered the return of ornaments to Ramayya.
2. This was followed by a revision by Ramayya against the appellant and the other accused. The High Court has allowed the revision and directed that the matter should go back to the Sessions Judge so that the accused should be re-tried on the charges on which they had been brought to trial on the former occasion. It is against this order of the High Court directing retrial that the present appeal by special leave is directed . It may be mentioned, however, that only Chinaswamy Reddy has appealed while the other accused has not appealed against the order of the High Court.
3. The main contention of the appellant before us is that this was a revision by a private party. There were no exceptional circumstances in this case which would justify the High Court in interfering with an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party. Further, it is urged that S. 439(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically forbids the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that a reading of the judgment of the High Court shows that by the
