BANSI LAL & ORS. versus LAXMAN SINGH

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 191 · Decided: 15-07-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ ' 
-I 
BANSI LAL & ORS. 
v. 
LAXMAN SINGH 
JULY 15, 1986 
[V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND M.M DUTT, JJ.) 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-S. 439-High Court-Revi-
sional Jurisdiction-When entitled to set' aside order of acquittal of Trial 
Court and order re-trial. 
The appellants, after trial by the Court of Additional Sesssions 
Judge on a charge of murder under s. 302 read withs. 34 of the Indian 
Penal Code, were acquitted giving them the benefit of donbt. 
The respondent, a son of the deceased victim, preferred a crimi-
nal revision petition before the High Court nnder s. 397/401 Cr. P.C. 
challenglng the order of acquittal. A Single Judge allowed the revision 
petition, set aside the acquittal of the appellants and remitted the case to 
the trial Court for re-trial. 
The appellants appealed to this Court, inter alia, contending that 
the Single Judge of the High Court has transgressed the bounds of his 
revisional jurisdiction in reappreciating the evidence and setting aside 
their acquittal. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: 1. The High Court has clearly transgressed the limits of 
its revisional jurisdiction under s. 439(4) of Cr. P.C. in setting aside the 
order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Jndge and directing 
a re-trial of the case. I 197F I 
2. Even in an appeal against an order of acquittal no interference 
will be made with the jndgment of the trial Court except in rare and 
exceptional cases where there has been some manifest illegality in the 
approach to the case or in the appreciation of the evidence or where the 
conclnsion of fact recorded by the Trial Judge is wholly unreasonable so 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
as to be liable to be characterised as perverse and there has been a 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11986] 3 S.C.R. 
resultant miscarriage of justice. The revisional jurisdiction of the High 
Court while dealing with an order of acquittal passed by the trial court 
is more narrow in its scope. It is only in glaring cases of injustice 
resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the 
trial court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of 
the acquittal and direct a re-trial of the acquitted accused. From the 
very nature of this power it should be exercised sparingly and with 
great care and caution. I 195A-C I 
K.C. Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1963] 3 SCR 412; D. 
Stenbens v. Nosibolla, 11951] SCR 284; Jogendranath Jha v. Polailal 
Biswas, 11951] SCR 676; Akalu Ahir and Ors. v. Ramdeo Ram, [1974] 
1 SCR 130; Amar Chand Aggarwal v. Shanti Bose, AIR 1973 SC 799; 
and Satyendra Nath Dutta and Anr. v. Ram Narain, [1975] 2 SCR 743 
followed. 
3. The mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the 
trial court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not 
justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a re-trial 
oftheaccused. ll97C] 
In the instant case, the High Court did not keep in mind the 
principles regarding the limits of its revisional powers while dealing 
with the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 
which did not suffer from any manifest illegality. The dominant justifi-
cation of the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court is the view it 
took of the evidence of the two eye-withnesses. Having carefully gone 
through the records of the case, this Court is satisfied that it was a 
possible view and it cannot be characterised as illegal or perverse. It 
may well be that the Single Judge of the High Court was not inclined to 
agree with the trial Court's finding on the basis of his independent 
scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case but that 
would not furnish any justification for interference in revision with the 
order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Even in an 
appeal the Appellate Court would not have been justified in interfering 
with an acquittal merely because it was inclined to differ from the 
findings of fact reached by the trial court on the appreciation of the 
evidence. The revisional power of the High Court is much more re-
stricted in its scope. I 197B-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 320 of 1986 
BANS! LAL v. LAXMAN SINGH [ERADI, J.J 
193 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.1984 of the Delhi 
High Court in Crl. Revision No. 228 of 1982. 
S. Rangarajan, Miss Asha Rani Jain and Sanjay Parikh, for th~ 
Appellant. 
K.N. Chitkara and R.C. Verma for the Respondent

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.