9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court overstepped its revisional jurisdiction by re-appraising evidence and ordering a re-trial. 2. The limits and conditions under which a High Court can interfere with an acquittal in a revision petition filed by a private party. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the High Court overstepped its revisional jurisdiction by re-appraising evidence and ordering a re-trial: The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had indeed overstepped its revisional jurisdiction by re-appraising the evidence and ordering a re-trial. The High Court, despite acknowledging the limits of its power, engaged in a detailed re-evaluation of the evidence, which is not permissible under the revisional jurisdiction, especially when the State had not appealed against the acquittal. The High Court's criticism of the trial court's appraisal of evidence, including the testimony of key witnesses like Ramdeo Ram and Puljharia, led it to set aside the acquittal and order a re-trial. The Supreme Court emphasized that such re-evaluation and the resultant order for re-trial amounted to an indirect conversion of acquittal into conviction, which is prohibited. 2. The limits and conditions under which a High Court can interfere with an acquittal in a revision petition filed by a private party: The Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is an extraordinary discretionary power to be exercised in aid of justice and to correct grave injustices. It emphasized that this power should not be used to re-appraise evidence or interfere with conclusions of fact unless there is a serious legal infirmity or failure of justice. The Court cited several precedents, including *K.C. Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh* and *Jogendranath Jha v. Polailal Biswas*, which outline the exceptional circumstances under which a High Court can interfere with an acquittal in a revision petition by a private party. These include instances where the trial court had no jurisdiction, wrongly excluded evidence, or overlooked material evidence, among others. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court's power in such cases is circumscribed by Sections 417 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. and fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence. It stressed that interference should be limited to glaring cases of injustice resulting from violations of fundamental legal principles. The Court also noted that the High Court should refrain from ordering a re-trial unless there is a significant procedural defect in the original trial. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court committed a serious error by directing a re-trial based on its re-assessment of the evidence while exercising its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a private complainant. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order, and restored the trial court's acquittal order. The judgment underscores the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, especially in cases of acquittal, and the necessity for High Courts to exercise this power judiciously and with caution.
|
