Single judge order dismissing a criminal revision against acquittal. The court held that Section 401(3) Cr.P.C. prohibits converting acquittal to conviction and dismisses the petition if no jurisdictional error exists.
Dismissed the revision petition against the judgment of acquittal at the motion stage.
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.
1
NAFR
• HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 834 of 2017
---- Applicant
Versus
1. Sukhdev S/o Mahesh Yadu, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Temri, P.S. And Tahsil Nandghat, District Durg, Present District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
2. Devnarayan S/o Sukhdev Yadu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Temri, P.S. And Tahsil Nandghat, District Durg, Present District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
3. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate Bemetara District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
---- Non Revisioner/Respondents
For Revisioner/applicants : Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.3/State :Shri Anil Pandey, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
Order On Board
23.11.2017
2 . This revision is preferred against the judgment dated 18.8.2017, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG) in Cr. Appeal No.71/2011, wherein the said Court has affirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara in Criminal Case No.
2
223/2010 for commission of offence under Sections 447 and 379 r/w Section 34 IPC.
3. It is a land dispute bearing Survey No. 584 area 0.31 hectares, situated at village Temri. Statements of Bisahu (PW1), Santuram (PW2), Shambhu (PW3), Bhojram (PW5), Govardhan Lal Sahu (PW6), Kamal Sahu (PW7) and Ashok (PW8) were recorded. It is established that non-revisioners were in possession of the land and again it is opined by the trial Court that the paddy was sown by the non-revisioners. Though the revisioner is claiming his right over the said land on the basis of registered sale deed executed in is favour dated 21.5.2010, but it is established from the evidence that since 7 years of the said sale deed, the land is in possession of the nonrevisioners. Both the Court have given concurrent finding regarding possession of the land in favour of the non-revisioners on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution.
4 . Now, the core issue for consideration in this revision is whether this Court can convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
5 . Section 401 (3) Cr.P.C. commands that nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
6 . It is not a case where the relevant materials have not been discussed by the Court of Magistrate or the Court of Sessions or irrelevant material has been taken into consideration. When all the
3
material placed before both the Courts below has been discussed and the finding arrived at by both the Courts is based on evidence, it cannot be said that the trial Court and the first appellate court have taken any extraneous matter into consideration for deciding the issues between the parties.
7 . Sections 447 and 379 of IPC relates to criminal acts and for criminal act mens rea should be established by the prosecution. If there is no guilty mind and one is entering into the land after assertion of his right, the same cannot be termed as criminal act. When the finding recorded by the Courts are well within their jurisdiction, there is limited scope to interfere with the same. If finding of acquittal cannot be converted directly, the same cannot be converted by indirect way remanding the case for re-trial.
8 . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the finding recorded by the Courts below, it is not a case where interference by this Court is required invoking jurisdiction of revision. The revision has no substance and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)
JUDGE
sunita
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction under Section 401(3) Cr.P.C.
Whether the revision petition against the judgment of acquittal has substantive merit.
Whether the conviction can be secured indirectly by remanding the case for re-trial.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Santu Sahu
Sukhdev Yadu
Devnarayan Yadu
State Of Chhattisgarh
Ram Prasanna Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
