SHEETALA PRASAD AND ORS. versus SRI KANT AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 16 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 17-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 686 
A 
SHEETALA PRASAD AND ORS. 
t 
v. 
SRI KANT AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2420 of 2009) 
B 
DECEMBER 17, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.401 - Revisional 
... 
jurisdiction - Exercise of, by High Court at the instance of 
c private complainant - Scope - Held: Revisional jurisdiction, 
when invoked by a private complainant against an order of 
acquittal, cannot be exercised lightly and can be exercised 
only in exceptional cases where interest of public justice 
require interference for correction of manifest illegality or 
D prevention of gross miscarriage of justice - In such cases, or 
cases of similar nature, retrial or rehearing of the appeal may 
be ordered - On facts, High Court exercised revisional 
jurisdiction with material illegality and irregularity resulting into 
miscarriage of justice to the accused-appellants - Judgment 
E rendered by High Court accordingly set aside. 
The appellants allegedly formed an unlawful 
assembly and in pursuance of their common object, 
assaulted the two sons of respondent no.1 causing 
> 
injuries to them and when respondent no.1 tried to save 
F 
his sons, he too was assaulted and his licenced gun was 
broken. 
Respondent no.1 lodged FIR in pursuance of which 
the appellants were inter alia charge sheeted under s.308 
G IPC. The Sessions Court acquitted the appellants under 
s.308 IPC and though it held them guilty under s.324 rlw 
s.149 IPC, but having regard to their age, character, 
antecedents and to the circumstances in which the 
offences were committed, released the appellants on 
H 
686 
-
~ 
1 
~ 
"'" 
SHEETALA PRASAD AND ORS. v. SRI KANT AND 
687 
ANR. 
probation of good conduct. 
The order passed by the Sessions Court was not 
challenged by the State. Respondent no.1 however filed 
criminal revision petition against the order. The High 
Court prima facie found the appellants guilty u/s.308 IPC 
and remitted the matter to the Sessions Court for passing 
fresh order of conviction and punishment. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the present case, the High Court was 
exercising revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a 
private complainant. Sub-section (3) of s.401 CrPC 
prohibits conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of 
conviction. Without making the categories exhaustive, 
revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court 
at the instance of private complainant (1) where the trial 
court has wrongly shut out evidence which the 
prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible 
evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible, (3) 
where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case 
and has still acquitted the accused, (4) where the material 
evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or 
the appellate court or the order is passed by considering 
irrelevant evidence and (5) where the acquittal is based 
on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under 
the law. [Para 9) [692-G-H; 693-A-C] 
1.2. Revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a 
private complainant against an order of acquittal, cannot 
be exercised lightly and can be exercised only in 
exceptional cases where the interest of public justice 
require interference for correction of manifest illegality or 
the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. In these 
cases,_ or cases of similar nature, retrial or rehearing of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) $.C.R. 
A the appeal may be ordered. [Para 9] [693-C-D] 
2.1. In the present case, the High Court prima facie 
came to the conclusion that case under s.308 IPC is 
made out against the appellants. Such a conclusion 
-
B could have been recorded only in a properly constituted 
appeal, filed by the State Government. The High Court 
further concluded that no offence punishable under 
., .. 
s.324 IPC is committed by the appellants. This finding 
• 
could have been recorded only in an appeal filed by the 
c 
appellants. In the face of prohibition contained in s.401(3) 
CrPC, it was all the more incumbent upon the High Court 
to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into 
one of conviction by the indirect method. [Para 10] [693-
E-G] 
D 
2.2. Since the High Court held the appellants guilty 
under s.308 r/w s.149 IPC and not under s.324 r/w s.149 
' 
IPC, on remand the Trial Court is left with no judicial 
discretion but to convict the 

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