2004 (8) TMI 429 - SC - Indian Laws

Revision - Criminal Revision - Power of High Court - Offence - Criminal offence - Common intention - Evidence - Appreciation of - Probation of offenders - Grant of

Summary

Issues:
Setting aside of the High Court order reversing the conviction of the accused under Section 324 and 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Detailed Analysis:
The State and the complainant sought to overturn the High Court's decision that reversed the judgment of conviction against the accused for offenses under the IPC. The incident involved a quarrel between the complainant and the accused, leading to the accused entering the complainant's house and assaulting her. The trial court convicted three accused individuals based on evidence from witnesses and medical reports. The appellate court upheld the conviction, leading the accused to appeal to the High Court via criminal revision. The High Court acquitted the accused, prompting the State and the complainant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-examining the evidence in-depth. The Supreme Court noted that the medical certificate and the joint complaint by building occupants supported the occurrence of the alleged incident. The High Court's acquittal was based on minor discrepancies and undue importance given to certain aspects, such as the use of tape-recorder and cassettes in the assault. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning on common intention under Section 34 IPC, emphasizing that prior concert is not necessary to establish common intention.

The defense of false implication due to alleged motives was rejected by the Supreme Court, which found the High Court's re-examination of evidence at the revisional stage to be erroneous. The Supreme Court cited previous judgments to highlight the limitations of revisional powers and the need for self-restraint. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal, maintaining the conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts. The accused were granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, considering the age of the incident, the educational background of the parties, and the nature of the dispute.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, overturned the High Court's acquittal, and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts. The accused were released on probation for one year upon executing a bond for good behavior, as deemed appropriate by the Supreme Court.