2008 (1) TMI 917 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. High Court's revisional jurisdiction and its limitations.
3. Credibility of the Autopsy Surgeon's testimony.
4. High Court's remand order and its implications.

Summary:

1. Conviction under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code:

Appellants were charged for commission of offences u/s 148 and 302 IPC and in the alternative u/s 302/149 and 120-B IPC. They were convicted for an offence u/s 323 read with Section 34 IPC only, as accused Nos. 1 to 4 had only caused simple injuries to the deceased Umashankar, and the provisions of Sections 148 and 149 IPC were not attracted.

2. High Court's revisional jurisdiction and its limitations:

The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the judgment of acquittal, and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court noted that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 397 read with Section 401 CrPC is limited. The High Court did not point out any error of law by the trial judge and instead re-appreciated the evidence, which is beyond its revisional jurisdiction.

3. Credibility of the Autopsy Surgeon's testimony:

The High Court criticized the Autopsy Surgeon, stating that he willfully suppressed the head injury to protect the respondents. It was held that the post mortem report was incomplete and steps for prosecution of the doctor were recommended. The Supreme Court found that the Autopsy Surgeon was not cross-examined by the State, nor was he declared hostile, and thus the High Court's approach was flawed.

4. High Court's remand order and its implications:

The High Court's remand order directed the trial court to pass judgment based on the evidence on record, emphasizing the eyewitness accounts over the medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively reversing the trial court's findings and directing a retrial, which indirectly converted the acquittal into a conviction. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the trial court's decision.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, the improper re-appreciation of evidence by the High Court, and the flawed criticism of the Autopsy Surgeon's testimony.