SATYENDRA NATH DUTTA & ANR. versus RAM NARAIN

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 743 · Decided: 18-11-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · 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 
ff 
SATYENDRA NATH DUTTA & ANR. 
v. 
RAM NARAIN 
November 18, 1974 
(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. N. BHAGWATI, JJ.] 
743 
Section 439 ('4 )-App;eal again~/ acquittal by private complainant...:.State not 
prefering appeal under sec, 417-interference with the order of acquitta/-
Sessions Court judgment not su!Jering from any manifest i//egality-Acquillal 
not resulting in any misca1·riage of justice-High Court, if could order retrial. 
The appellants Satyendra Natlt Dutta and Subha>h Mauzumdar were tried 
by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, for offences in conn·action 
with the .death of one Nanhey Lal and injuries to his son, Raj 
Kishore, 
Satyendra Nath Dutta was· charged under secuon 302 and section 307 read with 
section 34 while the other appellant was charged under section 307 and section 
302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. The learned Sessions 
Judge 
acquitted the appellants upon whir.b Ram Narain, a brother o'f the deceased 
Nanhey Lal, filed a revision appJjcation in the High Court of Allahabad under 
section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure. challenging the order of acquittal. 
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of acquittal 
nnd dire=ted that the appellants be retried by the Sessions Court. This appeal 
by special leave has been preferred against the judgment of the High Court 
ordering re·trial. 
· 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be mvoked 
m-.rely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis· 
appreciated the evidence on record. [74SAJ 
D. Stephens v. Nosibolla, [1951] S.C.R. 284, Logendranath Jha and Ors. v. 
Polai/al Biswas, [1951] S.C.R, 6761 K. Chinnasw01!1y Reddy .v. ~tat~ of Andhra. 
Pradesh (1963] 3 S.C.R. 412, Manendra Pratap Smgh v . . Sar1u Smgh & Anr. 
(1968] 2 S.C.R. 287 and Khetrabari Sama/ etc. v, State of Orissa. etc. (1970] 1 
S.C.R. 880 1e(erred to 
While applying the principles laid down by this Court in this mp~ct, the 
High Court has fallen precisely into the error which was corrected by this 
Court in these decisions The error which the High Court committed is that in 
the first place it blamed the accused for not demanding an identifk&lion parade, 
secondly it held by examining a few aspects of the ·evidence that the accused were 
previouily known to the eye-witne'sses amd thirdly it assumed wrongly that 
the conclusion of the Sessions Court that Nanhey Lal had made a dying declara-
tion was ba!ed on inadmisiible evidence .. The Sessions Court considered . the': 
various cir.cumstances and came to the conClusion that Nanhey Lal had made a 
dying decl&ration. That conclusion may be wrong but that cannot justify sett-
ing aside the order of acquittal and directing a re-trial of the appellants. The 
dominant justification of the order of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court 
is the view it took of the evidence of the eye-witnesses. If that evidence was 
unacceptable. there were no -circumstances in the case on which the appellants 
could be convicted. [748B-CJ 
· 
The High Court has . thus transsressed the narrow limits of its revisional 
jurisdiction under section 439( 4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The 
judgment of the Sessions Court did not suifer from any· manifest illegality and 
. the interests of justice did not require the High Court to interfere with the 
order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court Any fair assessment of the 
evidence of the e;ve-witnesse> would Show that the acquittal of the appellants 
Jed to no miscarna~e of justice. [7480] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuJUSDICTION : ·Criminal Appeal No. SS of 
1971. 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975]2 s.c.a. 
Appeal by special le•ave from the Jildgment and order dated the 
29th September 1970, of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) 
in Criminal Revision No. 364 of 1966. 
Debabrata Mukherjee Manoj Swaroop and U. S. Prasad, for the 
awellants. 
. 
Shivpujan Singh, for respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD J. The appellants Satyendra Nath 
Dutta 
and 
Subhash Mauzumdar were tried by the learned Civil and Sess.ions 
Judge, Lucknow, for offences in coinnection with thei death of one 
Nan.hey Lal and injuries to his son, Raj Kishore. Satyendra Nath 
Dutta was charged under section 302 and section 307 read with section 
34 while the other appellant was charged under section 307 and sec-
tion· 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. The learne
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.