Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 July, 1962
In K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (1963 (3)
SCR 412 = AIR 1962 SC 1788) a note of caution was appended so that the High
Court does not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect
method of ordering retrial when it cannot directly convert a finding of acquittal
into a finding of conviction in view of specific statutory prohibition. While
noticing that it is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining exceptional
cases which would cover all contingencies for exercise of revisional power, some
cases by way illustration were mentioned wherein the High Court would be
justified in interfering with the finding of acquittal in revision. The High Court
would be justified to interfere where material evidence is overlooked by the trial
court.
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh ... vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 13 August, 2002
In a recent decision in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P. Singh & Ors.
v. State of Bihar [now Jharkhand] & Anr. ([2002] 6 SCC 650) noticing
principles laid in Stephen's and Chinnaswamy Reddy it was held that the High
Court was not justified in reappreciating the evidence on record and coming to a
different conclusion in a revision preferred by the informant under Section 401 of
the Code since it was well settled that the order of acquittal cannot be interfered
with in revision merely on the ground of errors in appreciation of evidence.
Relying upon these decisions, Mr. Misra contends that the High Court while
interfering with the judgment and order of the Court of Sessions has not kept in
view the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Reverting to the facts of the case in hand, the prosecution case in nutshell is
that while the informant Ambika Yadav, PW6 along with his uncle Rameshwar
Yadav (deceased) was going in search of some labourers and no sooner they
reached near a well situated in front of the house of accused Rambriksh Singh, the
accused started uttering abuses, caught hold of Rameshwer Yadav and forcibly
took him into their house. On protest, the informant was threatened and abused.
The dragging of Rameshwer Yadav by the appellants into their house was
witnessed by others but they were also abused and chased. While dragging the
deceased, the accused were uttering that he should be taken inside the house and
cut into pieces. The informant went to police station to inform the police. The
police party came and after breaking open the door of the house, the police entered
into the courtyard and found the mutilated dead body of Rameshwar Yadav. The
statement of the informant was recorded by the police officer, formal FIR
registered, investigation conducted whereafter the police submitted charge sheet
against the accused who were put on trial for the offence earlier noticed.
The High Court has observed that the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8
appears to be relevant. PW8 is the Doctor who held autopsy over the dead body
and also proved the post mortem report. The injuries on the deceased show the
brutal manner in which he was done away with.
Ram Gulam Chaudhury And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 25 September, 2001
Mr.B.B. Singh relying upon the case of Ram Gulam Chaudhary & Ors. v.
State of Bihar ([2001] 8 SCC 311), submits that in the present case the accused
have failed to offer any explanation in respect of aspects exclusively within their
knowledge and, therefore, it is an additional link which completes the chain of
circumstances. It is not necessary for us to examine this aspect. It is not relevant
for the present purposes and may be addressed before the court of sessions at an
appropriate stage.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
D. Stephens vs Nosibolla on 2 March, 1951
Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are group of sections conferring higher and
superior courts a sort of supervisory jurisdiction. These powers are required to be
exercised sparingly. Though the jurisdiction under Section 401 cannot be invoked
to only correct wrong appreciation of evidence and the High Court is not required
to act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to correct
manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice.
More than half a century ago, in D.Stephens v. Nosibolla (1951 SCR 284 =
AIR 1951 SC 196), this Court held that revisional jurisdiction when it is invoked
against an order of acquittal by a private complainant is not to be lightly exercised,
it could be exercised only in exceptional cases to correct a manifest illegality or to
prevent a gross miscarriage of justice and not to be ordinarily used merely for the
reason that the trial court has misappreciated the evidence on record.
Section 401 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1