The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by the complainant seeking to challenge the acquittal of six accused persons. The Court held that it could not embark upon reappreciation of evidence or substitute its own view on facts, finding no manifest illegality or jurisdictional error in the lower court's order.
Revision dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1569 of 2003 Revisionist :- Nem Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Case called out in the revised list. None appears for the revisionist.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 12.03.2003 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 26, Etah whereby opposite party Nos. 2 to 7, namely, Chandra Pal, Ashok, Kaptan, Bhudev, Bakhedi and Anar Singh were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427/149, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nidhauli Kalan, District Etah.
Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist Nem Singh had moved a complaint against opposite party Nos. 2 to 7. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Charges were framed and prosecution in support of its case examined PW-1 Nem Singh, PW-2 Smt. Shanti Swaroop, PW-3 Virendra Singh.
Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, impugned judgement and order dated 12.03.2003 was passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 26, Etah, acquitting the opposite party Nos. 2 to 7.
From the perusal of impugned order, it appears that opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 were acquitted by the court concerned on the ground that they have been falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity, no independent witness was produced against them; there were major contradictions in the statements of PW1, PW-2 and PW-3 in respect of incident and story narrated in the complaint was not proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
In Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, 1975(4) SCC 649 , the Court reminded that jurisdiction of High Court in criminal revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a reappreciation of evidence. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction in revision the Court would be justified in refusing to re-appreciate evidence for determining whether the
concurrent findings of fact reached by learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge was correct.
In Pathumma and another Vs. Muhammad, 1986(2) SCC 585 reiterating the above view the Court said that in revisional jurisdiction the High Court would not be justified in substituting its own view for that of a Magistrate on a question of fact.
In Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001(9) SCC 631 the Court said:
" The revision power under the Code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. "
In Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another, 2004(7) SCC 665 , in a matter again arising from the judgment of acquittal, the revisional power of High Court was examined and the Court said:
" 4. Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are group of sections conferring higher and superior courts a sort of supervisory jurisdiction. These powers are required to be exercised sparingly. Though the jurisdiction under Section 401 cannot be invoked to only correct wrong appreciation of evidence and the High Court is not required to act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. "
In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.
Order Date :- 6.9.2018/NS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal of accused persons in a criminal revision.
Whether the revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised routinely.
Whether there is any manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice warranting interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Duli Chand Vs. Delhi AdministrationReferred¶9
Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, 1975(4) SCC 649 · Who else cites this
Pathumma and another Vs. MuhammadReferred¶11
Pathumma and another Vs. Muhammad, 1986(2) SCC 585 · Who else cites this
Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anotherExplained¶12
Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001(9) SCC 631 · Who else cites this
Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and anotherExplained¶14
Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another, 2004(7) SCC 665 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
