2002 (8) TMI 866 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Acquittal of appellants in Sessions Trial
- Dismissal of State's appeal against acquittal
- Revision by informant leading to re-trial order by High Court
- High Court's interference with order of acquittal
- Jurisdiction of High Court in revision against acquittal

Acquittal of Appellants in Sessions Trial:
The appellants were acquitted by the Sessions Judge due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The incident involved an altercation leading to the death of the informant's son. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence, but the Sessions Judge found the appellants not guilty.

Dismissal of State's Appeal Against Acquittal:
The State's appeal against the acquittal of the appellants was dismissed by the High Court on grounds of limitation. The dismissal of the appeal, even on such grounds, was considered final, sealing the judgment of the trial court.

Revision by Informant Leading to Re-Trial Order by High Court:
The informant filed a revision before the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to set aside the acquittal and order re-trial. The High Court allowed the revision, emphasizing the inconsistency in witness testimonies and the need for re-trial based on the evidence.

High Court's Interference with Order of Acquittal:
The High Court re-evaluated the evidence and concluded that the Sessions Judge's acquittal order was unjustified. It highlighted the consistency in eyewitness accounts and disregarded the changes in the informant's testimony. The High Court set aside the acquittal and ordered re-trial of the appellants.

Jurisdiction of High Court in Revision Against Acquittal:
The Supreme Court analyzed the revisional power of the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It emphasized that the High Court should not convert an acquittal into a conviction, directly or indirectly. The Court stated that revisional jurisdiction should only be exercised in exceptional cases to prevent gross miscarriage of justice, and interference with an order of acquittal should be minimal unless there is a manifest illegality or grave injustice. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's interference in this case was not justified, as there was no legal infirmity or procedural error in the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order for re-trial of the appellants.