2004 (3) TMI 745 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether High Court has only demonstrated as to how the material evidence has been overlooked leading to manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice?

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision of judgment and order of acquittal by the High Court.
2. Principles governing the revisional court's interference with an order of acquittal.
3. Application of statutory provisions under Sections 397 to 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Consideration of evidence and material on record in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the revision of a judgment and order of acquittal by the High Court. The appellants were tried for murder under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court of Sessions acquitted them, but the High Court set aside the acquittal, remitting the case for retrial by the Court of Sessions without allowing further evidence to be adduced. The defense argued that the High Court's decision amounted to reappreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in revisional jurisdiction.

2. The judgment discussed the principles governing the revisional court's interference with an order of acquittal. It highlighted that the revisional jurisdiction should be sparingly exercised and only in exceptional cases to correct manifest illegality or prevent a gross miscarriage of justice. The court emphasized that the High Court must not convert a finding of acquittal into a conviction indirectly, especially when there is a statutory prohibition against it.

3. The judgment delved into the application of statutory provisions under Sections 397 to 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These sections confer higher courts with supervisory jurisdiction, which should be exercised judiciously. The court noted that while the High Court is not required to act as an appellate court, it must correct manifest illegality leading to a miscarriage of justice.

4. The judgment extensively analyzed the consideration of evidence and material on record in a murder case relying on circumstantial evidence. It outlined the prosecution's case, which was based on circumstantial evidence due to the absence of an eyewitness. The High Court observed relevant witness testimonies and the investigating officer's deposition, concluding that the trial court had overlooked crucial evidence, warranting a retrial. The High Court's decision was upheld, emphasizing that the material evidence had been overlooked by the trial court, justifying the remand for retrial.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to remit the case for retrial based on the overlooked material evidence, and upheld the principles governing revisional jurisdiction in cases of acquittal.