Complainant sought revision of an acquittal for rioting, criminal trespass and mischief over demolition of his boundary wall on disputed land. The High Court held the lower courts' findings were not perverse, applied revision-against-acquittal principles and dismissed the revision.
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. 16 of 2019
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Ayaz Naved, GA. For Respondents 2 to 8 : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
2
Order On Board
08/01/2024
3
available on record, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges levelled against them. During trial, one of the accused namely, Mohitram has died. Against the said finding, the complainant has preferred an Appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC, which has also been dismissed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge. Hence this Revision.
4
{(2015) 2 SCC 721}, scope of criminal revision against acquittal has been highlighted and it was observed that normally the High Court will not interfere in Revision with the order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. Relevant para-8 reads thus:-
“ 8. The appellant appearing in person submitted that the parties had taken divorce by mutual consent as per agreement reached before this Court and thereafter, the respondent was not justified in proceeding against the appellant. It was further submitted that the High Court failed to advert to the settlement between the parties and also exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of acquittal. The Magistrate in its detailed order duly appreciated the entire evidence and found that no case for cruelty was made out against the appellant. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the said acquittal could not be set aside in absence of perversity. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar3 laying down as follows: (SCC pp. 654-55, para 12)
“ 12 . We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in reappreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the informant under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional court, prohibiting it from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code
5
of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a retrial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. (See D. Stephens v. Nosibolla4 , K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P.5 , Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram6 , Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju v. Bonapalli Peda Appadu7 and Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh8 . )”
“ 39. We have also considered the judgment of the learned Single Judge on merits of the matter. In a revision against acquittal preferred by a private party, there is a very little scope to interfere. Here was a case where the learned Single Judge disapproved of the appreciation of the evidence by the trial court. It is not as if the trial court had ignored any important piece of evidence or it had chosen not to appreciate the same. It is again not as if there was any piece of evidence which was illegally not permitted to come on record. Again, it is also not a case where there was some serious defect in the trial affecting the merits of the matter. Further, the Court trying the appellant-accused did not lack the jurisdiction also to try and convict or acquit the appellant-accused. All that the High Court has observed is that the appreciation of evidence by the trial court was not
6
correct and the trial court should not have taken the view that it has taken of the evidence.
40. This question has been considered in the celebrated judgment of Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram1 , where, after considering the judgments of D. Stephens v. Nosibolla2 , Logendranath Jha v. Polai Lal Biswas3 , K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P.4 and Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh5 this Court came out with categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with the finding of acquittal in revision: ( Akalu Ahir case1 , SCC pp. 587-88, para 8)
“( i ) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the [appellant-]accused;
( ii ) where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce;
( iii ) where the appellate court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible;
( iv ) where the material evidence has been overlooked only (either) by the trial court or by the appellate court; and
( v ) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law.”
Of course, these categories were declared by this Court to be illustrative and this Court observed that other cases of similar nature could also be properly held to be exceptional in nature where the High Court could justifiably interfere with the order of acquittal.
41. In this very judgment in Akalu Ahir case1 though in para 10, this Court did not generally approve of the appreciation of evidence by the trial court Judge and held it to be not perfect or free from flaw and further observed “the court of appeal may be justified in disagreeing with the conclusion, but it does not follow that on revision by a private complainant, the High Court is not entitled to reappreciate the evidence for itself as if it is acting as a court of appeal and then order a retrial”. The situation, as we will show further, is identical in the present case.”
7
Sd/(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
Barve
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in a private complainant's revision against acquittal for rioting and trespass.
Whether the findings of acquittal by the courts below were perverse or manifestly illegal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj and OthersRelied on¶9
(2015) 2 SCC 721 · Who else cites this
K.Ramachandran Vs. V.N. Rajan and AnotherRelied on¶10
(2009) 14 SCC 569 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Firendra Sahu
State of Chhattisgarh
Kanhiya
Lekhram
Chameli
Rathbai
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
