HONNAIAH T.H. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 1108 · Decided: 04-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
HONNAIAH T.H.
v
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 1147 of 2022)
AUGUST 04, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
J B PARDIWALA, JJ]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.161. 397(2) –
Prosecution csae was that FIR was registered on 26 December 2016
for offences punishable under ss.143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 302,
307, 114 and  149 of  the  IPC – According to the FIR, on  25
December  2016,  the accused came to the village of the appellant
armed with knives and rods, and abused and assaulted some of the
villagers – A few of the accused allegedly assaulted and stabbed
the appellant, his elder brother and another villager with knives –
The grievously injured persons were first taken to the Government
Hospital at Maddur – The injured were referred to Mandya District
Hospital from where they were further transferred to K R Hospital,
Mysore – Appellant claimed that the FIR was registered on the
information furnished by him, making him the informant – During
trial, PW 2 (doctor of Maddur Government Hospital), stated that
the appellant and another injured witness were brought by the police
to Maddur Government Hospital and that he had referred both the
patients to Mandya District Hospital for further treatment – PW 4,
working at K R Hospital, Mysore stated that the statement of the
appellant was recorded in his presence by the PSI Maddur on 26
December 2016 – During the course of his examination-in-chief,
the Public Prosecutor wanted to mark the complaint together with
the signature of the appellant as an exhibit – An objection was
raised by the defense counsel on the ground that in view of the
statement of PW 2, during the course of his examination, the
statement of the appellant is referable to s.161 of the CrPC and
cannot be marked as an exhibit – Trial court refused to mark the
complaint on the basis of the statement by PW 2, and on the ground
that PW 7 did not depose in his evidence that he gave the complaint
to the police – The State did not pursue its remedies against the
order of the trial court – Appellant  instituted a criminal revision
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1108
1108
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1109
under ss.397(1) and 401 of the CrPC before High Court – High
Court upheld the order of the trial court, holding that the appellant
as the de-facto complainant had no locus standi to file the revision
petition and the powers of revision cannot be exercised in relation
to an interlocutory order and therefore dismissed the revision petition
in view of the  bar contained in s.397(2) of CrPC – Hence instant
appeal – Held: On the basis of the deposition of PW 4, it prima
facie appears that the statement of the  appellant was recorded on
26  December 2016 at K R Hospital, Mysore in the presence of PW
4 – On the basis of the statement of PW7, intimation about the offence
was received at PS Maddur following which the FIR was registered
on 26 December 2016 – Thus, the basis of the order of the trial
court, which has been upheld by the High Court, namely, that the
statement of the appellant is a statement under s.161 CrPC is
erroneous – The statement of the appellant, in fact, was the basis
on which the FIR was registered – Hence, it was legitimately open
to the prosecution to have the statement proved and marked as an
exhibit during the course of the trial – There would be a serious
miscarriage of justice in the course of the criminal trial if the
statement were not to be marked as an exhibit since that forms the
basis of the registration of the FIR – The order of the trial judge
cannot in these circumstances be treated as merely procedural or of
an interlocutory in nature since it has the potential to affect the
substantive course of the prosecution.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.397(2) – Revisional
Jurisdiction of High Court in criminal matter – Scope of – The
revisional jurisdiction u/s.397 of CrPC can be exercised against
the final order of acquittal or conviction, or an intermediate order
not being interlocutory order where the interest of the public justice
requires to subvert manifest illegality and to prevent gross
miscarriage of justice – In the present case, the order of the trial
court declining to mark the statement of the informant as an exhibit
is an intermediate order affecting important rights of the parties
and cannot be said to be purely of an interlocutory nature – The
revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 r/w 401 of CrPC is a discreationary
in nature and

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