Supreme Court of India
SHEETALA PRASAD AND ORS.versusSRI KANT AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1319
- Decided
- 17 December 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- R V RAVEENDRAN
Holding
Revisional jurisdiction under s.401 CrPC cannot be exercised lightly by a private complainant, and the High Court’s conversion of an acquittal into a conviction in this case was illegal.
Summary
The appellants were acquitted of an offence under Section 308 IPC by the Sessions Court, which instead convicted them under Section 324 r/w 149 IPC and released them on probation. The private complainant filed a criminal revision under Section 401(3) CrPC, and the High Court set aside the acquittal, finding the appellants guilty of Section 308 r/w 149 IPC and remitting the case for fresh conviction. The Supreme Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction when invoked by a private complainant and reiterated that Section 401(3) prohibits converting an acquittal into a conviction except in exceptional cases of manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice. It held that the High Court had exercised its jurisdiction with material illegality and irregularity, effectively converting the acquittal into a conviction, which is impermissible. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the Sessions Court judgment, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court may exercise revisional jurisdiction under s.401 CrPC at the instance of a private complainant to set aside an acquittal and order conviction.
- Whether such revisional jurisdiction can be exercised lightly or only in exceptional cases involving manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice.
- Whether the High Court’s conversion of an acquittal into a conviction, even indirectly, violates s.401(3) CrPC.
- Whether the matter should be remitted for a fresh conviction after the High Court’s finding of guilt under a specific IPC provision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 401, s. 401(3)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 308, s. 323, s. 324, s. 325, s. 342, s. 427, s. 429, s. 504, s. 506
Subjects
criminal revisionSection 401 CrPCprivate complainantacquittalmiscarriage of justiceretrialprobationIPC Section 308IPC Section 324IPC Section 149
Judgment
[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 686
A SHEETALA PRASAD AND ORS. t
v.
SRI KANT AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2420 of 2009)
DECEMBER 17, 2009
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.401 - Revisional ...
jurisdiction - Exercise of, by High Court at the instance of
c private complainant - Scope - Held: Revisional jurisdiction,
when invoked by a private complainant against an order of
acquittal, cannot be exercised lightly and can be exercised
only in exceptional cases where interest of public justice
require interference for correction of manifest illegality or
D prevention of gross miscarriage of justice - In such cases, or
cases of similar nature, retrial or rehearing of the appeal may
be ordered - On facts, High Court exercised revisional
jurisdiction with material illegality and irregularity resulting into
miscarriage of justice to the accused-appellants - Judgment
E rendered by High Court accordingly set aside.
The appellants allegedly formed an unlawful
assembly and in pursuance of their common object,
assaulted the two sons of respondent no.1 causing
>
injuries to them and when respondent no.1 tried to save
F his sons, he too was assaulted and his licenced gun was
broken.
Respondent no.1 lodged FIR in pursuance of which
the appellants were inter alia charge sheeted under s.308
G IPC. The Sessions Court acquitted the appellants under
s.308 IPC and though it held them guilty under s.324 rlw
s.149 IPC, but having regard to their age, character,
antecedents and to the circumstances in which the
offences were committed, released the appellants on
H 686
SHEETALA PRASAD AND ORS. v. SRI KANT AND 687
ANR.
probation of good conduct. A
The order passed by the Sessions Court was not
- challenged by the State. Respondent no.1 however filed
criminal revision petition against the order. The High
Court prima facie found the appellants guilty u/s.308 IPC
and remitted the matter to the Sessions Court for passing
B
fresh order of conviction and punishment. Hence the
present appeal.
~
Allowing the appeal, the Court
c
HELD: 1.1. In the present case, the High Court was
exercising revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a
private complainant. Sub-section (3) of s.401 CrPC
prohibits conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction. Without making the categories exhaustive, D
revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court
1
at the instance of private complainant (1) where the trial
court has wrongly shut out evidence which the
prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible
evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible, (3)
E
where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case
and has still acquitted the accused, (4) where the material
evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or
the appellate court or the order is passed by considering
irrelevant evidence and (5) where the acquittal is based
F
on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under
the law. [Para 9) [692-G-H; 693-A-C]
1.2. Revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a
private complainant against an order of acquittal, cannot
be exercised lightly and can be exercised only in G
~
exceptional cases where the interest of public justice
require interference for correction of manifest illegality or
"'"
the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. In these
cases,_ or cases of similar nature, retrial or rehearing of
H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) $.C.R.
A the appeal may be ordered. [Para 9] [693-C-D]
2.1. In the present case, the High Court prima facie
B
came to the conclusion that case under s.308 IPC is
made out against the appellants. Such a conclusion
could have been recorded only in a properly constituted
appeal, filed by the State Government. The High Court
-
further concluded that no offence punishable under .,..
s.324 IPC is committed by the appellants. This finding
could have been recorded only in an appeal filed by the •
appellants. In the face of prohibition contained in s.401(3)
c CrPC, it was all the more incumbent upon the High Court
to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into
one of conviction by the indirect method. [Para 10] [693-
E-G]
D 2.2. Since the High Court held the appellants guilty
under s.308 r/w s.149 IPC and not under s.324 r/w s.149
IPC, on remand the Trial Court is left with no judicial '
discretion but to convict the appellants under s.308 read
with s.149 IPC and impose punishment on them.
E Normally, when High Court decides to interfere with the
judgment of the trial court in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction, the retrial of the case is ordered based on
certain well settled principles. However, after recording
guilt of an accused under particular provision of Indian >
F Penal Code, the matter could not have been remitted to
the Sessions Court for passing appropriate order of
conviction and punishment. [Para 10] [694-A-C; 694-E]
2.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the High Court exercised revisional jurisdiction with
G material illegality and irregularity resulting into
miscarriage of justice to the appellants. The judgment ~1
rendered by the High Court in Criminal Revision
remanding the case to the Court of Sessions Judge for
passing proper order of conviction of the appellants and
H imposing punishment on them is hereby set aside. The
SHEETALA PRASAD AND ORS. v. SRI KANT AND 689
ANR.
Judgment delivered by the Sessions Judge is restored. A
[Paras 11, 12 and 13) [694-D; 694-F-G]
- CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2420 of 2009.
B
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.5.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 5819
of 2006.
' S.K. Agrawal, Manoj Prasad, D.S. Dubey, R.K. Gupta,
S.K. Gupta, Arun Yadav, Manoj K. Mishra, Vivek Singh, Yunus c
Malik, Shrish Kumar Misra for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J.M. PANCHAL, J. 1. Leave granted.
D
~ i 2. This appeal is directed against judgment dated May 25,
2007, rendered by the learned single Judge of High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 5819 of 2006,
by which the finding recorded by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial Case No.271 of E
2000, decided on September 7, 2006 that the appellants are
not guilty under Section 308 IPC but are guilty under Section
324/149 IPC and are entitled to be released on probation of
i, good conduct, is set aside and the case is remanded to the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge with a direction to
F
pass fresh order of conviction of the appellants in the light of
observations made in the judgment and impose sentence on
them in accordance with law.
3. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as
under: - G
-~ t
The respondent No. 1, i.e., Kant Pandey, resides at village
Tikara, District Jaunpur. On May 16, 1999, the appellants
formed an unlawful assembly, common object of which was to
cause injuries to Varun and Manoj, who are sons of Kant H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Pandey. At about 11.30 a.m., the appellants, in furtherance of
their common object, assaulted Varun and Manoj who were
ploughing their field with a tractor and caused injuries to them
and when Kant Pandey tried to save his sons, he was also
assaulted and his licensed gun was broken.
-
B
The First Information Report was lodged by Kant Pandey,
on the basis of which investigation was conducted. At the
conclusion of investigation, the appellants were charge- sheeted ,
in the court of learned Magistrate for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 325, 427, 504,
c 506 read with Section 149 IPC. As offence punishable under
3 Section 308 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions,
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Jaunpur, for
trial.
D 4. Since the appellants did not plead guilty, the prosecution
examined seven witnesses to prove its case against the
appellants. After evidence of the prosecution witnesses was
over, the learned Additional Sessions Judge explained to the
E
appellants the circumstances appearing against them in the
evidence of prosecution witnesses and recorded their further
statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. In their further statements, the case of the
-
appellants was that of total denial. They also examined three
witnesses in support of their defence.
F 5. On appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge held that no case for
commission of offence punishable under Section 308 IPC was
,,
made out against the appellants, but it was proved by the
prosecution that the appellants had committed offences
G punishable under Sections 148, 324 read with Section 149 IPC
and Section 429 read with Section 149 IPC. Having regard to "I
the age, character, antecedents of the appellants and to the
circumstances in which the offences were committed, the
learned Judge was of the opinion that it was expedient that the
H
SHEETALA PRASAD AND ORS. v. SRI KANT AND 691
ANR. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
appellants should be released on probation of good conduct. A
Therefore, instead of sentencing them at once to any
punishment, the learned Judge by judgment dated September
7, 2006 directed release of the appellants on each of them
entering into a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties
for the like amount to appear and receive sentence when called B
upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to
keep the peace and beiof good behaviour.
-"
6. It is relevant to notice that neither the acquittal of the
appellants under Section ~08 IPC nor their release on probation
after finding them guilty under Section 324 read with Section c
149 IPC was challenged b\ the State of UP before the higher
forum. However, acquittal of the appellants under Section 308
IPC and their release on probation after their conviction under
Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC was made subject-
f matter of challenge before the High Court by the original D
informant by filing Criminal Revision No. 5819 of 2006.
7. The learned Single Judge, who heard the revision
application, appreciated the evidence on record and prima
facie came to the conclusion that offence punishable under E
Section 308 read with Section 149 IPC, was made out against,
the appellants. The learned Single Judge arrived at a firm
-~
finding that in view of the injuries sustained by Varun and the
first informant, the appellants could not have been convicted
under Section 324 IPC with the aid of Section 149 and,
F
therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 324
read with Section 149 IPC and direction to release them on
"" probation, were liable to be set aside. In view of these findings,
the learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, has
confirmed the finding recorded by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge that the appellants are guilty but thereafter has
G
r
set aside the acquittal of the appellants under Section 308 IPC
as well as their conviction under Section 324 read with Section
149 IPC and also the direction to release them on probation.
H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A The learned Judge has further remitted the matter to the Court
of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur to pass fresh
order of conviction and sentence on the appellants, keeping in
view the observations made in the body of the judgment. Having
6 regard to the facts of the case, this Court feels that the finding
B recorded and directions given by the High Court should be
reproduced verbatim, which read as under: -
~~
"Consequently, this revision is hereby allowed. Those
findings of impugned judgment, whereby the accu~ed-
respondents have been found guilty, are upheld, but the
c finding recorded in para 32 thereof with regard to the
offence under Section 308 IPC as well as the conviction
of the accused-respondents under Section 324/149 IPC
and order of releasing them on probation of good conduct
are hereby set aside. ~
D
Session Trial No.271 of 2000 is sent back to the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C.
Act), Jaunpur, who is directed to pass fresh order of
conviction and sentence of the accused-respondents in
E accordance with law, keeping in view the observations
made in the body of this judgment."
The above finding and directions have given rise to the
instant appeal.
F 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties
at length and considered the evidence forming part of the "!'
record.
9. The High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction
G
at the instance of a private complainant and, therefore, it is
necessary to notice the principles on which such revisional
. '-
jurisdiction can be exercised. Sub-Section (3) of Section 401
of Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits conversion of a finding
of acquittal into one of conviction. Without making the
categories exhaustive, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised
H
SHEETALA PRASAD AND ORS. v. SRI KANT AND 693
ANR. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
i
by the High Court at the instance of private complainant (1) A
where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the
prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible
evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible, (3) where
the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still
acquitted the accused, (4) where the material evidence has B
.' been overlooked either by the trial court or the appellate court
-¥ or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence and
(5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the
offence which is invalid under the law. By now, it is well settled
that the revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a private c
complainant against an order of acquittal, cannot be exercised
lightly and that it can be exercised only in exceptional cases
where the interest of public justice require interference for
correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross
miscarriage of justice. In these cases, or cases of similar
D
nature, retrial or rehearing of the appeal may be ordered.
10. Applying the above stated principles to the facts of the
case on hand, this Court finds that after discussing medical
evidence and evidence of injured witness in great detail the
High Court has prima facie come to the conclusion that case E
under Section 308 IPC is made out against the appellants.
Such a conclusion could have been recorded only in a properly
constituted appeal, filed by the State Government. The High
Court has further concluded that no offence punishable under
Section 324 IPC is committed by the appellants. This finding F
could have been reoorded only in an appeal filed by the
:"
appellants. In the face of prohibition contained in Section 401(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was all the more
incumbent upon the High Court to see that it does not convert
....., the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect G
\ method. Further, the matter is remitted to the learned Additional
Sessions Judge for the purpose of passing fresh ~rder of
conviction and imposition of sentence on the appellants in the
light of what is observed in the impugned judgment. In the
impugned judgment, the High Court has conCiuded that the H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A appellants are guilty under Section 308 read with Section 149
IPC and not under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC.
Therefore, on remand the Trial Court is left with no judicial
discretion but to convict the appellants under 9 Section 308
read with Section 149 IPC and impose punishment on them.
8 Normally, when High Court decides to interfere with the
judgment of the Trial Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction,
the retrial of the case is ordered based on certain well settled l'
principles. However, after recording guilt of an accused under
particular provision of Indian Penal Code, the matter could not
c have been remitted to the Sessions Court for passing
appropriate order of conviction and punishment.
11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the view that the High Court has exercised revisional
jurisdiction with material illegality and irregularity resulting into
D miscarriage of justice to the appellants and, therefore, the
appeal deserves to be allowed.
12. For the reasons stated in the judgment, the appeal
succeeds. The judgment dated May 25, 2007, rendered by the
E learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 5819 of 2006 remanding
the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge for passing
proper order of conviction 10 of the appellants and imposing
punishment on them is hereby set aside.
F 13. The judgment dated September 7, 2006, delivered by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions
Trial Case No. 271 of 2000 convicting the appellants under
Sections 148, 342 read with Section 149 and Section 427 read
with Section 149 IPC and directing their release on probation
G for a period of two years is restored.
·!
..,.
8.8.8. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "criminal revision"Sign in to search