Summary
In a murder trial arising from a village clash over water in Mandya, the trial court refused to let the prosecution mark the injured informant's hospital statement as an exhibit. It treated the statement as one under Section 161 CrPC. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the informant's revision. It held that a complainant may challenge only the final orders mentioned in Section 372 CrPC, and that the order was interlocutory under Section 397(2). The Court held that the statement was the very basis on which the FIR was registered and could be proved. Refusing to mark it affected the substantive course of the prosecution, so the order was not interlocutory. Since the High Court may revise suo motu, an informant or victim may invoke that jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, the statement directed to be marked.
Issues
- Whether an order refusing to mark the informant's statement that formed the basis of the FIR as an exhibit is an interlocutory order barred from revision under Section 397(2) CrPC.
- Whether an informant or victim can maintain a revision petition against an order passed during trial.
Provisions considered
- Sections 397(2) and 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Interlocutory orders are only those of a purely interim nature that do not affect important rights. Refusing to mark the statement underlying the FIR went to the root of the prosecution and was revisable, and since revision may be exercised suo motu, the informant could invoke it. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Sections 154, 161 and 372, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The informant's statement, recorded at the hospital before the FIR was registered, formed the basis of the FIR and was not a Section 161 statement. Section 372 does not restrict a victim's revisional remedies to the final orders it mentions. (¶¶ 11, 15)
Held
- The injured informant's statement was recorded at the hospital in the presence of a doctor, and the FIR was registered on its basis. It was not a statement under Section 161 CrPC, so the prosecution was entitled to prove it and have it marked as an exhibit. (¶ 11)
- Following Amar Nath, Madhu Limaye and V.C. Shukla, an interlocutory order under Section 397(2) is one of a purely interim nature that does not touch important rights. Refusing to mark the statement on which the FIR rested went to the root of the prosecution and could imperil the FIR. It was an intermediate order open to revision, and refusing it would cause a gross miscarriage of justice. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- As the High Court may exercise revisional power suo motu, a third party such as an informant or victim may draw its attention to the need to do so. Section 372 CrPC does not confine a victim's revision to challenges against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence or inadequate compensation. Under Sheetala Prasad, a private complainant may seek revision where the trial court wrongly shuts out prosecution evidence. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed. The orders of the trial court and High Court are set aside, the trial court is directed to allow the informant's statement to be proved and marked as an exhibit, and the trial is to conclude by 31 March 2023.