KAPTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1997-4-26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
April 24,1997
KAPTAN SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
K CHINNASWAMY REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [RELIED ON]MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. SARJU SINGH [RELIED ON]
KHETRABASI SAMUAL F VS. STATE OF ORISSA [RELIED ON]
PAKALAPATI NARAYANA GAJAPATHI RAJU VS. BONAPALLI PEDA APPADU [RELIED ON]
AYODHYA DUBE VS. RAM: SUMER SINGH [RELIED ON]
VIJENDER DEVINDER ALIAS BHINDER MUKESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF DELHI [RELIED ON]
Cited Judgements :-
AMRENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2000-4-49] [REFERRED TO]L AMEER VS. ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2009-12-373] [REFERRED TO]
BHOOP SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2018-3-42] [REFERRED TO]
M. NATARAJAN VS. THIRU. K.R. PALANICHAMY AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-6-100] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. RAJUBHAI DHAMIRBHAI BARIYA [LAWS(GJH)-2003-12-44] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. MD JAMILUDDIN NASIR [LAWS(CAL)-2010-2-53] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-9-121] [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN LAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-101] [REFERRED TO]
SHEO NARAYAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-3-125] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BILASH PRASAD VS. BINDA TANTI [LAWS(PAT)-1999-10-105] [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2011-2-476] [REFERRED TO]
SMTI JAMUNA DAS VS. RAM CHANDRA DAS [LAWS(GAU)-2019-1-91] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR & ORS VS. NISHU [LAWS(HPH)-2019-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2018-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
SHER SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
HUSAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-11-111] [REFERRED TO]
IROM SHYAM SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2008-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
TITI SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2021-9-48] [REFERRED TO]
HIRA NAND SHASTRI VS. RAM RATTAN THAKUR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
SANGAPPA V TENGINAKAI VS. STATE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAPUSA [LAWS(BOM)-2001-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
SAHDEV VS. STATE OF U P & 9 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-42] [REFERRED TO]
FRANY RUSTOM CONTRACTOR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-2-82] [REFERRED TO]
JANARTHANATN VS. ANANDA NAIDU [LAWS(MAD)-1998-9-154] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION VS. COLGATE PALMOLIVE I LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2001-8-177] [REFERRED]
JAGDISH JUGTAWAT VS. MANJULATA [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. NIRMLA W/O KAILASH CHANDRA SUTHAR VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-4-200] [REFERRED TO]
Pramila Soni VS. Maluk Chand [LAWS(MPH)-1998-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMPA LAL AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2018-5-92] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. ANNAMALAI COTTON MILLS LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2014-6-225] [REFERRED TO]
GODAWARI VS. RATTAN LAL [LAWS(HPH)-1998-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. MUNIR SHAH [LAWS(NCD)-2002-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-215] [REFERRED TO]
KABALI VS. KRISHNAMOORTHY [LAWS(MAD)-2001-12-94] [REFERRED TO]
YADVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-9-106] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2018-4-67] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-184] [REFERRED TO]
A.IMMELDA VS. R.ANTHONISAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-326] [REFERRED TO]
AMRITPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-156] [REFERRED TO]
HIRANYA KUMAR NATH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2024-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
LOCHAN VS. RAJINDER KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2018-11-139] [REFERRED TO]
KULWINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2018-8-47] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
MUNISH GHAI VS. JAGJEEVAN VERMA [LAWS(HPH)-2018-11-105] [REFERRED TO]
SARAVJIT MALHOTRA VS. LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2018-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
SARAVJEET MALHOTRA VS. LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED [LAWS(HPH)-2018-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
TARA DEVI VS. PREM CHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2018-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
SHARDA DEVI VS. PRAVEEN ALIAS ANU AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-4-160] [REFERRED TO]
DHANRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2003-1-371] [REFERRED]
RAGHBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-4-380] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI RAJ KUMAR VS. SHRI SHAMSHER SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-8-110] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAT RAM AND ANR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2018-11-198] [REFERRED TO]
BIDHI CHAND VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2018-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORI LAL VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2017-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
STANLY BAI REBERA VS. RAYAPPAN [LAWS(MAD)-1998-8-120] [REFERRED TO]
BANSI LAL VS. AB RASHID [LAWS(J&K)-2006-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI VS. SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM - SIT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
HASIN TABREJ VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA SONI VS. GOPAL [LAWS(MPH)-2023-10-91] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KHATOON W/O SHRI RAMJAN KHAN D/O NIJAMUDDIN VS. RAMJAN KHAN S/O SHRI USMAN KHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-4-198] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. JITENDRA [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-2-178] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWAROOP MEENA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2024-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMAN LAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-9-107] [REFERRED TO]
KANNAGI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-733] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHSMA VS. YOGANAND [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-186] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RASHEED GANI QURESHI VS. KHALIL PASHA SHAIKH BASHIR [LAWS(BOM)-2022-12-150] [REFERRED TO]
Shankar Dass VS. State of H P [LAWS(HPH)-2000-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GANI SHAIKH MAHEBOOB VS. KHALIL PASHA SHAIKH BASHIR [LAWS(BOM)-2000-11-82] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
M. K. Mukherjee, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The six appellants before us were arraigned before the Sessions Judge, Morena for rioting and the murder of Baijnath in the night betwen June 5 and 6, 1983. The trial Judge acquitted them of both the charges; and aggrieved thereby the respondent No. 2, who was the grandfather of the deceased, sent a registered letter to the High Court. That letter was registered as a criminal revision and notice was issued to the appellants. After hearing the parties the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the acquittal of the appellants and remanded the matter to the trial Court to pass a fresh judgment after hearing the parties or, if need be, to hold a retrial. The above judgment of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.
(3.)In assailing the judgment of the High Court Mr. Lalit, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401, Cr.P.C. in that it reappraised the entire evidence from its own point of view and reached inferences contrary to those of the trial Court on almost every point which was legally impermissible. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgments of this Court in Chinnaswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788, Mahendra Pratap v. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707, Khetra Basi v. State of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 272 and P. N. G. Raju v. B. P. Appadu, AIR 1975 SC 1854, wherein the scope and extent of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in dealing with an order of acquittal have been dealt with. In Chinnaswamy (supra) this Court held that though it was open to the High Court to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of the private parties the revisional jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases when there was some glaring defect in the procedure or there was a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there had been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. This Court pointed out that it was not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies but indicated some cases which would justify the High Court to interfere with an order of acquittal in revision. The cases so indicated are; where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused or where the trial Court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce or where the appeal Court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial Court as not admissible or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial Court or by the appeal Court or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of an offence, which is invalid under law. In the other cases referred to above this Court reiterated the principles laid down in Chinnaswamy (supra) and observed that the revisional jurisdiction when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal ought not to be exercised lightly and that it could be exercised only in exceptional case where the interests of public justice required interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice.
(2.)The six appellants before us were arraigned before the Sessions Judge, Morena for rioting and the murder of Baijnath in the night betwen June 5 and 6, 1983. The trial Judge acquitted them of both the charges; and aggrieved thereby the respondent No. 2, who was the grandfather of the deceased, sent a registered letter to the High Court. That letter was registered as a criminal revision and notice was issued to the appellants. After hearing the parties the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the acquittal of the appellants and remanded the matter to the trial Court to pass a fresh judgment after hearing the parties or, if need be, to hold a retrial. The above judgment of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.
(3.)In assailing the judgment of the High Court Mr. Lalit, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401, Cr.P.C. in that it reappraised the entire evidence from its own point of view and reached inferences contrary to those of the trial Court on almost every point which was legally impermissible. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgments of this Court in Chinnaswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788, Mahendra Pratap v. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707, Khetra Basi v. State of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 272 and P. N. G. Raju v. B. P. Appadu, AIR 1975 SC 1854, wherein the scope and extent of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in dealing with an order of acquittal have been dealt with. In Chinnaswamy (supra) this Court held that though it was open to the High Court to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of the private parties the revisional jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases when there was some glaring defect in the procedure or there was a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there had been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. This Court pointed out that it was not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies but indicated some cases which would justify the High Court to interfere with an order of acquittal in revision. The cases so indicated are; where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused or where the trial Court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce or where the appeal Court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial Court as not admissible or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial Court or by the appeal Court or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of an offence, which is invalid under law. In the other cases referred to above this Court reiterated the principles laid down in Chinnaswamy (supra) and observed that the revisional jurisdiction when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal ought not to be exercised lightly and that it could be exercised only in exceptional case where the interests of public justice required interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.