VENKATESAN versus RANI &ANR.

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 105 · Decided: 19-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 105 
VENKATESAN 
V. 
RANI &ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2008) 
AUGUST 19, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
B 
ss.397 and 401 - Revision against order of acquittal - c 
Scope of - High Court held that order of acquittal deserved 
reversal and remitted the matter to trial court for a fresh 
decision - Held: Revisiona/ jurisdiction of High Court, while 
examining an order of acquittal is extremely narrov.' and ought 
to be exercised only in cases where the tria.1 court had 0 
committed a manifest error of Jaw or procedure or had 
overlooked and ignored relevant and material evidence 
thereby causing miscarriage of justice - Further, re-
appreciation of evidence is not to be made - In the instant 
case, the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused 
E 
cannot be held to be a view impossible of being reached --
Keeping in mind the limited jurisdiction for a scrutiny of the 
foundation of the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, 
the reversal ordered by the High Court cannot be sustained. 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
F 
ss. 498-A, 304-B and 302 - Death of a married woman 
by bum injuries - Acquittal of husband by trial court - Set aside 
by High Court with a direction for decision afresh - Held: The 
investigation and the evidence of prosecution witnesses do 
G 
not reveal any harassment and ill-treatment to the deceased 
by the accused prior to her death and, as such, no case uls 
304-8 as well as uls 498-A is made out against the accused 
- Insofar as the offence u/s 302 is concerned, there is no eye 
105 
H 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
·• 
A 
witness to the occurrence -- By the time the witnesses reached 
the place of occurrence, deceased was already engulfed in 
flames - There are contradictions in the depositions of 
prosecution witnesses -- Further, the evidence of the doctor 
of Government Hospital that deceased herself had stated that 
B she had been injured due to bursting of the stove while she 
was cooking, casts a further doubt on the prosecution story -
Order of High Court is set aside, and that of trial court 
restored. 
The appellant was prosecuted for committing 
C offences punishable ulss 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC, on 
the allegations that he harassed and ill treated his wife 
for insufficient dowry and ultimately burnt her to death 
by pouring kerosene o.n her and setting her on fire. The 
trial court acquitted the appellant, but the High Court in 
D the revision filed by the mother of the deceased, held that 
the order of acquittal suffered from inherent flaws which 
justified a reversal of the same and remission of the 
matter for a fresh decision. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The revisional jurisdiction of the High 
Court while examining an order of acquittal is extremely 
narrow and ought to be exercised only in cases where 
the trial court had committed a manifest error of law or 
F procedure or had overlooked and ignored relevant and 
material evidence thereby causing miscarriage of justice. 
Re-appreciation of evidence is an exercise that the High 
Court must refrain from while examining an order of 
acquittal in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under 
G the Code. If within the limited parameters, interference of 
the High Court is justified, the only course of action that 
can be adopted is to order a re-trial after setting aside the 
acquittal. As the language of s.401 of the Code makes it 
amply clear, there is no power vested in the High Court 
H 
VENKATESAN v. RANI & ANR. 
107 
to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. 
A 
[para 7] [113-D-G] 
1.2 In the instant case, PW-1 and PW-2 had stated in their 
depositions that there was no demand for dowry by the 
accused and that the accused and deceased had married 
B 
on their own volition. No dying declaration was recorded. 
However, PW-10, the doctor, who was working in the 
casualty section of the Government Hospital, deposed that 
when questioned, the deceased had reported to her that 
she got injured due to bursting of the stove while she was 
cooking. From the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4, the charge 
C 
against the accused-appellant u/s 304-B of the IPC could 
not be sustained. The evidence of PW-12, the 1.0. that the 
investigation did not reveal any harassment and ill-
treatment to the deceased by the accused prior to her death, 
makes the prosecution case against the accused u/s 304-
D 
Bas w

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