CHAGANTI KOTAIAH & ORS. versus GOGINENI VENKATESHWARA RAO & ANR.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 867 · Decided: 03-04-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
CHAGANTI KOTAIAH & ORS. 
v. 
867 
GOGINENI VENKATESHWARA RAO & ANR. 
April 3, 1973 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I. D. DUA AND C. A. VAID!ALINGAM, JJ.] 
Code of Criminc.:l. procedure (Act S o1 1898) s. 439-Revision against 
acquittal by private party-Powers of High Court. 
In connection with the murder of two persons and injuries sustained 
by some prt>secution witnesses, 30 persons were tried by 
the 
Sessions 
Court for offences under ss. 148, 302 read with s. 149 or altematively,. 
under s. 302 read with s. 34 and ss. 323, 324 and 326 I. P. C. The trial 
court C\,nvicted 8 of them Of some of the offences but acquitted them 
Of th_e other offences, and 
al~o acquitted the remaining 22 accused of 
all the charges. The co,nvicted 8 accwed filed appeals before the High 
Court. The State had not filed any appeal but, one of the prosecution 
witnesses, as a private party, filed a criminal revision challenging the-
con1plete acl~uittal of the 22 accused as well as the 
acquitt'3.l 
of the 
8 convicted persons of the other charge5·. 
The High Court set aside 
the judgment of the trial court and remanded the entire case for retrial. 
Allowing the appeals to this Court, 
HELD : The order of the High Court in the revision case should: 
be set aside nnd the appeals filed by the 8 accused should be remanded 
to the High Court for disposal according to law. 
[8770-H] 
The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the criminal: 
revision was contrary to the principles laid down 
by this . Court ·and" 
the interference in revision by the High Court was unjustified. [S76C-D] 
(a) On the evidence on record, it could ,,ot be said that the acquittal 
of the 22 .1ccused or of the 8 accused on some of the charges was not 
justified. 
[877D-E] 
lb) Notwithstanding the fact that s. 439(4), Cr. P.C., 
does 
not 
authorise the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of 
conviction, it has in the present case, in fact contravened this provisiorr 
by recording a finding of guilt against the accused and 
directing 
the-
trial court to convict them aft.er retrial. The High Court missed 
the 
important hmitations on its power and set aside the finding of acquittal,. 
in revision, which could be done only in very exceptional circumstances. 
[876C-D, Hf 
( c!) The detailed consideration of the evidence by the High Court 
and expression of opin-ion about the guilt of the accu~ed has really loaded 
the dice against the accused when the case would go back for retrial. 
[877A-BJ 
( d) The High Court had admittedly not considered the grievance 
of the 8 convicted accused in their criminal appeals. 
[8750) 
( e) There is no question of lac'I< of jurisdiction ill the trial coui:t 
to try the case. 
Nor was any attack made that any evidence had been. 
H 
shut out at the trial. [876D-E, F-0] 
(f) There was no shutting out at the trial of any evidence whiclr 
!he prosecLotion wanted to adduce or the defence wanted to lead. All 
ava able evidence had been let in by both. The mere fact 
that the-
868 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1973] 3 S.C.R. 
irial court held that a dyi:ng declaration was not relevant while rons'ider-
ing the att"ack on another person did not amount to shutting out evidence 
at the trial. [876E-F] 
(g) It could not be said that there has been any glaring defect in 
the procedure or a manifest error on a point of law leading to a ftagrat'\t 
miscarriage of justice. 
[876G] 
A 
(h) It could l><Jt also be said that the trial court did not consider 
B 
the alternative charges under s. 34 and s. 149. The trial court had held 
that in view of the definite case of the prosecution and the nature of 
the evidence, none of the accused could be 
held 
constructiveh· 
liable . 
. [S77B-Cj 
K. C'1in11aswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 
412, Maliendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh & Anr. [1968] 2 S.C.R. 287, 
Khetrabc.si Sama! etc. v. State of Orissa etc., [1970] 1 S.C.R. 880 and 
C 
Amar Char.d Agar.Valla v. Shanti Bose and Another 
etc., 
Criminal 
Appeals Nos. 101-103 decided on 22-12-1972, fellowed. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeals 
Nos. 173 & 174 of 1970.' 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
August 25, 1970 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderab1d 
in Criminal Revn. No. 727 of 1969 and Cr. A. Nos. 201 and 202 
of 1969. 
P. Basi Reddy, K. R. Chaudhuri, Gopalakrishna Munhy and 
K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, for the appellant (in both the appeals). 
D 
T. V. S.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.