2013 (11) TMI 1526 - SC - Indian Laws

Offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code - Criminal Revision petition filed with High court - High court convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction - Power of revisional court - High Court in revision can set aside an order of acquittal but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into that of an order of conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order re-trial - Held that - In a case where the finding of acquittal is recorded on account of misreading of evidence or non-consideration of evidence or perverse appreciation of evidence, nothing prevents the High Court from setting aside the order of acquittal at the instance of the informant in revision and directing fresh disposal on merit by the trial court. In the event of such direction, the trial court shall be obliged to re-appraise the evidence in light of the observation of the revisional court and take an independent view uninfluenced by any of the observations of the revisional court on the merit of the case. By way of abundant caution, we may herein observe that interference with the order of acquittal in revision is called for only in cases where there is manifest error of law or procedure and in those exceptional cases in which it is found that the order of acquittal suffers from glaring illegality, resulting into miscarriage of justice. The High Court may also interfere in those cases of acquittal caused by shutting out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. In such an exceptional case, the High Court in revision can set aside an order of acquittal but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into that of an order of conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order re-trial. In the present case, the High Court in our opinion, rightly came to the conclusion that it is one of the exceptional cases as the finding of acquittal is on a total misreading and perverse appreciation of evidence. On the face of it, the High Court rightly set aside the order of acquittal but it gravely erred in converting the order of acquittal into that of conviction, instead of directing re-hearing by the trial court. Ordinarily we would have set aside the order of the revisional court to the extent aforesaid and directed for re-hearing by the trial court, but taking into account the nature of offence, at such a distance of time we would not like to charter that course. Before we part with the case, we may observe a common error creeping in many of the judgments including the present one. No distinction is made while using the words informant and complainant . In many of the judgments, the person giving the report under Section 154 of the Code is described as the complainant or the de facto complainant instead of informant , assuming that the State is the complainant. These are not words of literature. In a case registered under Section 154 of the Code, the State is the prosecutor and the person whose information is the cause for lodging the report is the informant. This is obvious from sub-section (2) of Section 154 of the Code which, inter alia, provides for giving a copy of the information to the informant and not to the complainant . However the complainant is the person who lodges the complaint. The word complaint is defined under Section 2(d) of the Code to mean any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate and the person who makes the allegation is the complainant, which would be evident from Section 200 of the Code, which provides for examination of the complainant in a complaint-case. Therefore, these words carry different meanings and are not interchangeable. In short, the person giving information, which leads to lodging of the report under Section 154 of the Code is the informant and the person who files the complaint is the complainant. - In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and decline to direct re-hearing by the trial court.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of acquittal by the High Court
- Power of revision of the High Court to convert acquittal into conviction
- Distinction between an informant and a complainant

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the order of acquittal by the High Court. The petitioner, along with three other accused, was acquitted of charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate. However, the High Court upheld the acquittal for all except accused no. 3, who was found guilty of an offence and sentenced accordingly. The appellant, accused no. 3, filed a special leave petition against this order, which was granted by the Supreme Court.

The High Court's decision was based on re-appraisal of evidence, finding the trial court's reasoning to be perverse. The High Court relied on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence to convict the appellant. The defense argued that the High Court, in revision, could not convert an acquittal into a conviction, but only direct for re-trial. However, the prosecution contended that the High Court had the power to set aside the acquittal if it found the reasoning to be perverse.

The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the High Court's powers of revision. While the High Court can exercise powers of an appellate court, it is restricted from converting an acquittal into a conviction. The Court emphasized that interference with an order of acquittal in revision is warranted only in cases of manifest error of law or procedure, or in exceptional circumstances where there is a glaring illegality leading to a miscarriage of justice.

In this case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court rightly set aside the order of acquittal due to misreading and perverse appreciation of evidence. However, the High Court erred in converting the acquittal into a conviction instead of directing a re-hearing by the trial court. The Supreme Court decided not to order a re-hearing considering the nature of the offence and the time elapsed since the incident.

Lastly, the Supreme Court made a crucial observation regarding the distinction between an informant and a complainant in legal proceedings. It clarified that the person providing information leading to a report is the informant, while the person filing a complaint is the complainant. The Court highlighted the importance of using these terms accurately in legal judgments to avoid confusion.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and declined to direct a re-hearing by the trial court.