9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was commented :- 10. If a public servant is corruptly (sic) makes a report in a judicial proceeding it will be offences under section 193 IPC and section 196 IPC and preparation of document with an intention to save person from punishment, it will be an offence falling under section 196 IPC. Thus, willful act of the Doctor in not referring to other injuries in the post mortem report discloses his intention to protect the respondents who are guilty of commission of murder. Witnesses were firm on the point of beating of deceased by lathi and number of injuries received by the deceased. It is held that post mortem report is incomplete report prepared by the doctor to give undue advantage to the accused. Appropriate steps for prosecution of PW9 Dr.Y.K. Malaiya be initiated for intentionally preparing false evidence. It was opined that having regard to the nature of deposition of the Autopsy Surgeon, the trial Court committed a grave error in ignoring the other relevant materials brought on records to pronounce a judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondents (appellants herein). It was furthermore held that the doctor had willfully suppressed the head injury and was thus guilty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court converted a judgment of acquittal to a judgment of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction but merely remitted the matter to the trial court for consideration afresh, this Court should not interfere therewith. 8. The State did not prefer any appeal from the judgment of the learned Trial Judge. From the proceedings of the High Court, it appears that the State was not even made a party in the criminal revision application. Public Prosecutor, however, represented the State before the High Court. Nobody interestingly appeared on behalf of the complaint-revisionist. 9. Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in terms of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. The High Court did not point out any error of law on the part of the learned Trial Judge. It was not opined that any relevant evidence has been left out of its consideration by the court below or irrelevant material has been taken into consideration. The High Court entered into the merit of the matter. It commented upon the credentiality of the Autopsy Surgeon. It sought to re- appreciate the whole evidence. One possible view was sought to be substituted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application in revision filed by a private party against acquittal 13. In the instant case the High Court not only entered into the merit of the matter but also analysed the depositions of all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. It, in particular, went to the extent of criticizing the testimony of Autopsy Surgeon. It relied upon the evidence of the so called eye witnesses to hold that although appellants herein had inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased, Dr. Y.K. Malaiya, PW-9, deliberately suppressed the same. He was, for all intent and purport, found guilty of the offence under Section 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code. The Autopsy Surgeon was not cross-examined by the State. He was not declared hostile. The State did not even prefer any appeal against the judgment. 14. In the absence of any such injury on the vital part of the body, the learned trial Judge, upon analyzing the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, held that only four accused had committed the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 alone. We see no reason as to how the findings of the trial judge can be said to be perverse. The learned trial judge in arriving a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hija is correct that sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not available to the first informant but the same by itself would not mean that in absence of any appeal preferred by the State, the limited jurisdiction of the court should be expanded. 19. We may notice a few of the decisions of this Court which are binding on us. In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh : [1963] 3 SCR 412, this Court observed :- It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have though fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of s. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l vs. HS Chowdhary : (1992) 4 SCC 305, this Court stated that the object of the revisional jurisdiction was to confer power on superior criminal courts to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or apparent harshness of treatment. In State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand : (2004) 7 SCC 659 this Court observed :-: 21. In embarking upon the minutest re-examination of the whole evidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of the self- restraint that he was required to exercise in a revision under Section 397 Cr. PC. On behalf of the accused, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice Sabharwal) is a party i.e. Ram Briksh Singh v. Ambika Yadav. That was the case in which the High Court interfered in revision because material evidence was overlooked by the courts below. The judgment of Ram Briksh mentioned above, has since been reported as Ram Briksh Singh vs. Ambika Yadav : (2004) 7 SCC 665 wherein it has been observed :- 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to accept the contention tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
