BINDESHWARI PRASAD SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 495 · Decided: 13-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

BINDESHW ARI PRASAD SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
AUGUST 13, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH AND BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 374 and 401: 
Revision-Jurisdiction and power of High Court under Section 401 
Cr.P.C.-Murder-Accused acquitted on benefit of doubt-Confirmed by the C 
High Court in appeal-Revision-Reversal and order for retrial thereof by 
the High Court-Correctness of-Held, Section 401(3) prohibits revisional 
Court from converting a finding of acquittal into conviction-High Court not 
justified in re-appreciating evidence-Not to interfere with order of acquittal 
except for correction of manifest illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage D 
of justice-Other-.vise it give rise to an incongruous situation that an accused 
acquitted by trial Court might have to face a second trial for the same 
offence-Penal Code; Sections 302 and 3021114. 
Revisional and appellate jurisdiction of High Court-Distinction 
between-Held, Appellate jurisdiction of High Court is much wider than its E 
revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal since grounds urged in 
Revision may be urged in the appeal but not vice-versa. 
Dismissal of appeal against acquittal-Effect of-Held, dismissal of 
appeal against acquittal puts a seal of finality on judgment of trial Court and 
it is not appropriate for the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction in F 
such cases. 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, there was a quarrel 
between accused-appellants and PW4, which took an ugly turn when son of 
PW4 intervened in the altercation and accused assaulted him with an iron 
rod hitting him on his head, resulting in his death. PW4, father of the G 
deceased, lodged F.I.R. 
The accused were tried for offences under Section 302 and 302/114 
l.P.C. but were acquitted by the trial Court on the ground that the prosecution 
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal of the State was H 
495 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A dismissed by the High Court on ground of limitation. In revision preferred by 
the informant, High Court set aside the order of acquittal and remitted the 
case to the Sessions Court for re-trial. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. High Court was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence 
on record and coming to a different conclusion in revision under Section 401 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 places a 
limitation on the powers of the Revisional Court by prohibiting it from 
converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction which is indicative of 
C the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 Cr.P.C. 
If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction 
direct!y, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. 
(499-G-H; 500-A] 
· 1.2. It is well settled law that High Court would ordinarily not interfere 
D in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the 
interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest 
illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. High Court would 
not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the 
trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of 
evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of 
E circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, 
but decisfons of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of· 
revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401Cr.P.C. in an 
appeal against acquittal by a private party. (500-B-D] 
D. Stephens v. Nosibol/a, AIR (1951) SC 196; K.C. Reddy v. State of 
F Andhra Pradesh, AIR (1962) SC 1788; Akalu Ahir and Ors. v. Ramdeo Ram, 
[1973] 2 SCC 583; Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju and Ors. v. Benapalli 
Peda Appadu and Anr., AIR (1975) SC 1854 and Mahendra Pratap Singh 
v. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707, relied on. 
1.3. In the instant case, judgment of the trial Court was not perverse. 
G No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no improper 
acceptance or rejection of evidence; nor was there any defect of procedure or 
illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself. In the absence of -
manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of 
revisional jurisd
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.