Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rajesh Kumar Unnithan vs Benny P. Jacob on 13 December, 2024
Bench: Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).5286 OF 2024
(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 381/2020)
RAJESH KUMAR UNNITHAN APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BENNY P. JACOB & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the second respondent-State and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.
3. The first respondent, who was the revision petitioner before the High Court, is no more. The third respondent is the widow of the deceased.
4. The appellant was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant. There was an appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal. The first respondent had filed a revision petition against the acquittal. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed on a technical ground that the appeal was not preferred by the State Public Prosecutor and it was preferred by the Advocate General of the State. However, by the impugned judgment, the revision petition filed by the first respondent was allowed. By setting aside the impugned judgment of the Trial Court of Signature Not Verified acquittal, an order of remand was made to the Trial Court Digitally signed by ASHISH KONDLE Date: 2024.12.17 directing 19:42:52 IST Reason: the Trial Court to rehear the case on the basis of 1 available evidence.
5. The course adopted by the High Court was in view of sub- Section (3) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which enjoins that in a revision, an order of acquittal cannot be converted into an order of conviction.
6. We find that the appeal preferred by the State against the order of acquittal was dismissed on a hyper-technical ground, though it was filed by the Advocate General of the State. In fact, more appropriate remedy to deal with the order of acquittal was the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State. As the appeal against acquittal was dismissed on the technical grounds, the first respondent prosecuted the revision petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant is consenting to setting aside the impugned judgment and for restoration of the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State.
8. If such an order is passed, it will save the time as the impugned judgment is of remand to the Trial Court. The scope of an appeal against acquittal is wider than the scope of a revision against the order of acquittal.
9. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore Criminal Appeal No.305/2014(A) as well as Criminal Revision Petition No.656/2010 to the file of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The third respondent will be entitled to be substituted in place of the first respondent as the revision petitioner. Criminal Appeal No.305/2014(A) is held as maintainable.
2
10. The restored Criminal Appeal as well as the Criminal Revision Petition shall be listed before the roster Bench on 17 th January, 2025 in the morning for fixing a date for hearing. The appellant, the second respondent-State and the third respondent shall be represented before the High Court on that day and no further notice shall be served upon them.
11. Considering the fact that the Revision Petition is of the year 2010 and the incident is of the year 2005, the High Court will give necessary out of turn priority for disposal of the Appeal and the Revision Petition. All questions are left open to the decided by the High Court.
12. The Appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed on the above terms. Needless to add that the Appeal of the State shall be treated as maintainable in law.
13. The record received by this Court shall be forthwith remitted to the High Court.
14. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam who shall ensure that the restored Appeal and the Revision Petition are listed as directed above.
..........................J. (ABHAY S. OKA) ..........................J. (PANKAJ MITHAL) NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 13, 2024.
3
ITEM NO.78 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 381/2020
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-09-2019 in CRL. REV. PET. No. 656/2010 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam] RAJESH KUMAR UNNITHAN PETITIONER(S) VERSUS BENNY P. JACOB & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) Date : 13-12-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shinoj K. Narayanan, Adv.
Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR Ms. Niveditha R Menon, Adv. Mr. Pranav Krishna, Adv. Mr. Aditya Verma, Adv.
Mr. Tarun Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Thomas. P. Joseph, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The Appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(ASHISH KONDLE) (ANU BHALLA) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(THE SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE) 4