VIMAL SINGH versus KHUMAN SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 170 · Decided: 08-10-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VIMAL SINGH 
v. 
KHUMAN SINGH AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 8, 1998 
B 
[M.M. PUNCHHI, C.J., AND V.N. KHARE, J.] 
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 and 304 part I-Murder-Knife blow 
by accused causing death--Trial Court acquitted the accused· holding that 
prosecution failed to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt-High Court 
C on reappraisal of evidence, set aside the order of acquittal-Convicted and 
sentenced the accused-On appeal, held, High Court not justified in setting 
aside the order of acquittal into one of conviction in exercise of its revisional 
power-Trial Court has not shut out or discarded any evidence on record--
High Court not authorised to reappraise evidence-Conviction set aside. 
D 
E 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sub-section (3) of Section 401-
Revisional power of High Court-Held, High Court in exercise of its revisional 
power can set aside an order of acquittal in exceptional cases, but it cannot 
convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction-The o.nly course left in 
such cases is to order retrial. 
The appellant was prosecuted for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 
The prosecution case was that the appellant had a quarrel with one 'V' and 
he gave a knife blow to the said 'V'. Next morning 'V' along with PW-3 and 
PW-4 was going in a bus to lodge the First Information Report in respect 
of the previous days' incident. The appellant sitting on the bonnet of the bus 
F threatened 'V' not to lodge any report. A quarrel broke out and appellant 
gave a knife blow to 'V' causing his death. Charge-sheet was filed against 
the appellant and appellant pleaded not guilty and denied the charge. 
Prosecution in its support examined the witnesses. Trial Court acquitted the 
appellant holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond 
reasonable doubt. Respondent No. 1 wrote a letter to the High Court against 
G the acquittal which was treated as a Revision Petition. The High Court on 
reappraisal of evidence, set aside the order of acquittal and held the appellant 
guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-I l.P.C. and sentenced him to 
seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
The contention of the appellant was that the High Court set aside the 
170 
VIMAL SINGH v. KHUMAN SINGH 
171 
order of acquittal passed by Trial Court and convicted the appellant in total 
disregard of the provisions ofsub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure ; and that the High Court has entered into the realm 
of reappraisal of the evidence which it was not authorised to do so in view 
of the settled principles of law. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. High Court is not justified in converting the order of 
acquittal into one of conviction in exercise of its revisional powers under 
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus the order of the 
High Court is set aside and that of the trial court restored. [176-C & DJ 
A 
B 
c 
1.2. The High Court in its revisional power under Section 401 Cr.P.C. 
does not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the 
Trial Court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The 
interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is limited 
only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision D 
suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when 
it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where 
the trial court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to 
have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the 
issue have been overlooked. No doubt, the High Court in exercise of its 
revisional power can set aside an order of acquittal if it comes within the E 
ambit of exceptional cases, but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into 
an order of conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such 
exceptional cases is to order retrial. In fact, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 
of the Code forbids the High Court in converting the order of acquittal into 
one of conviction. [174-F-G; 175-A-B) 
F 
2. The Trial Court has not discarded any evidence referred to in the 
judgment of the High Court. On the contrary, the trial court assessed the 
statements of witnesses and thereafter came to the conclusion that the 
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt The trial 
court found that PW-2 had only mentioned that some quarre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.