LexJOHAR AND OTHERS versus MANGAL PRASAD & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 185
~
JOHAR AND OTHERS
A
v.
-{
MANGAL PRASAD & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 2008)
JANUARY 30, 2008
B
"t
(S.S. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.)
"
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
ss.397 and 401(3)-High Court's power of revision-Jn a c
trial for offences u/s 302 rlw 34 /PC trial court convicting
accused u/s 323 - No appeal by State - On revision petition
by complainant, High Court ref3ppreciating whole evidence,
commenting upon credentiality of Autopsy Surgeon and
remanding the case to trial court observing that intention of all
the accused was to cause death of the victim and it was a case D
I
uls 302 /PC - Held: In effect and substance finding of trial
) -..
court has been _reversed - One possible view was sought to
be substituted by another possible view - High Court did not
point out any error of Jaw on the part of trial court - Since the
view of trial court could not. be termed to be a perverse one, E
High Court exceeded its jurisdiction - Judgment of High Court
set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 323134.
The appellants along with another accused were
>
prosecuted for causing death of a person. But the trial
F
.
court convicted all of them uJs 323 rlw s.34 IPC. The State
did not file any appeal. One of the accused filed an appeal
•·
· and his conviction u/s 323 IPC was confirmed by the High
Court. The complainant also did ·not challenge the order
of the trial court in his case. However, the complainant
filed a revision petition against order of the trial court as G
~
regards the appellants. The High Court opined that it was
a case u/s 302 IPC and intention of all the accused was to
cause the death of the victim, and that having regard to
the nature of deposition of the Au.topsy Surgeon, the ·trial
185
H
-+-
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 2 S.C.R.
A court committed a grave error in ignoring the other
relevant materials brought on record to pronounce a
judgment of acquittal. It further held that the doctor willfully
suppressed the head injury of the deceased and was thus
guilty of dereliction of duty. With these findings the High
8
Court remanded the case to the trial court.
In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was
-t·
~
contended for the appellants that the High Court
committed a manifest illegality in passing the impugned
c
judgment aga,inst the mandate of sub-section (3) of s.401
Cr.P.C.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court
in terms of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code
~
D of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited. The jurisdiction of
the High Court to entertain a revision application, although
' \-
is not barred, but severely restricted, particularly, when
~-< r
it arises from a judgment of acquittal. [Para 9 and 17)
.[191-E; 195-A]
E
D. Stephens vs. Nosibolla (1951) 1 SCR 284; Logendra
Nath Jha and others vs. Polaifal Biswas (1951) SCR 676; K.
Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1963) 3
SCR 412; Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. Sarju Singh and Anr.
F
(1968) 2 SCR 287; Janata Dal vs. HS Chowdhary (1992) 4
.A
$CC 305; State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Ku/dip
~ingh- Anand (2004) 7 SCC 659 and Satyajit Banerjee vs.
~
State of WB. (2005) 1 sec 115 - relied on.
~
Ram Briksh Singh vs. Ambika Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 665
1
G
'...:. distinguished.
f
)-
r
1 ;2 In the instant case, the approach of the High Court
to the entire case cannot be appreciated. Technically, it
may be said that the High Court has not converted the
judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court to a
H judgment of conviction, but for arriving at a finding as to
JOHAR AND OTHERS v. MANGAL PRASAD & ANR.
187
whether the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction or A
not, the approach of the High Court must be borne in
mind. The High Court not only entered into the merits of
the matter but also sought to re-appreciate the whole
evidence. It, in particular, went to the extent of commenting
upon the credentiality of the Autopsy Surgeon. It relied B ,
upon the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses to hold
that although appellants had inflicted injuries on the head
of the deceased, PW-9, the doctor, deliberately
suppressed the same. Evidently the High Court raised a
presumption that Autopsy Surgeon deliberateldy didhnot c ,
disclose the ante mortem head injury purporte to ave
been suffered by the deceased. The Autopsy Surgeon was
not cross-examined by the StaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.