LexMARY PAPPA JEBAMANI versus GANESAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 11 S.C.R. 1042 MARY PAPPA JEBAMANI v. GANESAN & ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos.2061-62 of 2013) DECEMBER 09, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 294(b) and 323 - Prosecution under - Summary trial - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction C by appellate court - High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction set aside the order of conviction and revived the acquittal order - Held: Since the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the order of first appellate court without assigning any reason, matter remanded to High o Court for consideration afresh. E Cod~ of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 311 - Retrial - Held: Court can direct retrial, where prosecution lacks in bringing hecessary evidence - Facts of the present case do not justify; parameters for retrial. A summary trial was initiated by the Magistrate on the complaint of the appellant (PW1) u/s. 294(b) and 323 IPC. PWs 2 and 3 i.e. the other two eye-witnesses turned hostile. The trial court giving benefit of doubt to the F accused:, acquitted them. Appellant-complainant approa9'ed first appellate court challenging the order of trial c,0urt and also prayed for retrial of the accused. The first appellate court reversed the acquittal order of the trial court and convicted the accused. High Court in revision, G revived the order of acquittal, but dismissed the application seeking retrial of the accused, as not · maintainable. Hence the present appeals challenging the order of High Court acquitting the accused and the order refusing retrial of the accused. H 1042 MARY PAPPA JEBAMANI v. GANESAN & ORS. 1043 Dismissing the appeal filed against refusal of retrial A and allowing the appeal questioning acquittal of the accused and remitting the same to High Court, the Court HELD: 1. Where prosecution lacks in bringing necessary evidence, the trial court ought to invoke its 8 powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and can direct for retrial. In the present case, the appellant although has alleged that the order for retrial should have been passed, nothing specific has been pointed out why the matter should be sent for retrial specially when the two C of the important witnesses had failed to support the prosecution/ complainant version. Apart from this, the complainant herself had failed to disclose as to what exactly was the genesis of the occurrence as also the contents of the abuse which could persuade this court that a de novo trial of the accused was essential. Thus D the appeal seeking retrial of the complaint case is not fit to be entertained as it is not possible to take a view that the investigation was shoddy or suffered from grave lacunae which would justify the parameters for retrial at. the instance of the complainant for the mere asking as it E does not meet the legal requirements justifying a retrial. [Paras 10, 11 and 12) [1049-C-G] Satyajit Banerjee and Ors. vs. State of WB. and Ors. (2005) 1 sec 115: 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 294; Zahira F Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 158: 2004 (3) SCR 1050; Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar (1998) 4 SCC 517: 1998 (2) SCR 1097 - relied on. . 2. Since the High Court has failed to record any G reason setting aside the order of the first appellate court, when it was exercising merely revisional jurisdiction, it is just and appropriate to remand the matter to the High Court to reconsider and assign reasons for setting aside the order of conviction and recording an order of H 1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A acquittal of the respondents, without specifying and ignoring the medical evidence although it was considering the matter only in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction which has limited ambit and scope. [Para 13) [1050-E-F] B c Case Law Reference: 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 294 relied on 2004 (3) SCR 1050 relied on 1998 (2) SCR 1097 relied on Para 9 Para 9 Para 10 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2061-2062 of 2013. From the Judgment & Order dated 25.02.201 O of the High D Court of Madras in CRLRC No. 620 2008 and Order dated 07.01.2011 in MP SR No. 15619 of 2010 in CRLRC No. 620 of 2008. E Mary Pappa Jebamani appellant-in-person. P.V. Yogeswaran, M.A. Chinnasamy, S. Muthu Krishnan, K. Krishna Kumar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.1. Leave as pra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.