Summary
The Supreme Court remanded a private complainants’ revision against acquittal in a mass-assault and house-burning case. The High Court had not adequately examined whether the trial court ignored material eyewitness and other evidence. Exaggerations did not justify discarding the whole prosecution account, and common object could be inferred from existing evidence. The Court ordered reconsideration of the revision, without deciding guilt or directing conviction.
Issues
- Whether Section 401(3) CrPC limited the Supreme Court’s Article 136 jurisdiction.
- Whether the High Court properly exercised revision jurisdiction when affirming the acquittal.
- How exaggerations, common-object evidence and medical opinion should be assessed in the circumstances.
Provisions considered
- Section 401, particularly subsection (3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A private complainant’s revision against acquittal permits exceptional correction of manifest illegality or gross injustice but does not permit the High Court to convert acquittal into conviction. Material evidence overlooked here required reasoned reconsideration. (¶ 22–26)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe restriction on the High Court under Section 401(3) does not restrict the Supreme Court’s constitutional appellate power to examine an unreasonable acquittal. (¶ 8–10)
- Sections 141 and 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860Unlawful assembly and common object may be inferred from the available evidence; separate evidence exclusively addressing those labels is not indispensable. The issue required consideration on remand. (¶ 18–20)
Held
- Section 401(3)’s prohibition on the High Court converting an acquittal into conviction does not circumscribe the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136. The Court could examine whether the view affirming acquittal was reasonable on the available record. (¶ 8–10)
- Witness evidence must be sifted to separate reliable substance from exaggeration. The falsus in uno principle is not a mandatory rule of Indian evidence. Minor variations about weapons or details in a large mob incident do not automatically destroy otherwise consistent testimony, particularly from injured eyewitnesses. The observations here were prima facie. (¶ 11–17)
- The courts overlooked evidence on house-burning, unlawful assembly and other charges. The assertion that burnt articles were not produced conflicted with the seizure record. Common object could be inferred from evidence of the group assembling and burning houses to force out and assault their occupants; no separate category of proof was required. (¶ 18–20)
- Where an eyewitness account is trustworthy and credible, medical opinion suggesting alternative possibilities is not conclusive against it. The High Court also ignored that lathis were allegedly used alongside sharp weapons. The Court declined further comment on merits because remand was necessary. (¶ 21)
- Private revision against acquittal is exceptional, requiring manifest illegality, perversity or gross miscarriage of justice. Overlooking material evidence can satisfy that standard. The High Court failed to examine whether those defects affected the trial judgment and had to undertake a proper, reasoned assessment. (¶ 22–25)
- Only the High Court’s revisional order was set aside. The revision was remitted for decision on merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s observations. No finding of guilt or direction to convict followed. (¶ 26)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court’s order affirming acquittal in revision set aside. Revision remanded for fresh merits consideration, uninfluenced by the Court’s observations; guilt not decided.