High Court's Revisional Jurisdiction U/S 401 CrPC Limited, Can’t Interfere With Trial Court's Conclusions Unless Manifestly Illegal: MP High Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the scope of revisional jurisdiction wielded by the High Court under Section 401 CrPC is limited and it cannot be put to use for reversing the conclusions reached by the courts below.

Adding to this, the single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh sitting at Indore also noted that the High Court cannot remand back a case to the trial court unless there is ‘manifest illegality’ or ‘miscarriage of justice’ in the judgment rendered by the trial court as enunciated by the apex court in Kaptan Singh and others v. State of M.P. & Anr. , AIR 1997 SC 2485.

“…Both the courts below have assigned clear, cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting respondent nos.1 to 3, therefore, in the absence of any perversity in such findings, this Court, in its limited revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the conclusions rendered by the Courts below. so far as the request for remanding back the case is concerned, this matter relates to the incident happened in the year 2012 almost more than 11 years ago, therefore, at this stage where the learned trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, have after analysing the evidence in proper perspective acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid offences, therefore, it would not be propitious to remand back the matter for further litigation”, the court noted while rejecting the petitioner’s request to remand back the matter on the grounds of infirmity and irregularity in the judgment.

Facts & Further Observations

The High Court was hearing a revision petition filed by a wife against the judgment by the appellate Additional Sessions Court that acquitted her husband from charges under Sections 498- A [cruelty by husband or relatives of husband], 294 [Obscene Acts in public places], 323 [voluntarily causing hurt] and 506 [criminal intimidation] of IPC, 1860. After their marriage was solemnized in 2009, the respondent-husband allegedly started harassing the petitioner-wife mentally and physically, demanded that she must leave her current job, and also assaulted her for not paying the dowry of twenty lakhs. In 2019, the Sessions Court also confirmed the acquittal of the respondents including the husband in the appeal.

Though the revision petitioner argued that the lower court erred in correctly interpreting the victim and witness statements that corroborated the cruelty meted by her, the High Court disagreed with the said version of the petitioner.

Respondents argued that the High Court cannot take the lead and convert an order of acquittal into findings of conviction as per Section 401(3) CrPC. Section 401 CrPC lists the High Court’s Powers of Revisions.

The court concluded that the High Court can proceed like an appeal court does only when the situation envisaged in Section 401(5) of CrPC presents itself. Section 401(5) CrPC mentions scenarios wherein the revision petitioner was under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto any other court when there actually was the scope for another appeal. In those instances, if the High Court deems it fit in the interests of justice, the revision application may be treated as a petition of appeal and be dealt with accordingly.

Reference was also made by the High Court to the decisions in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452 and State of A.P. v. Rajagopala Rao (2000) 10 SCC 338 to assert that the High Court’s scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited.

Agreeing with the inferences made by the lower courts from the evidence placed on record, the High Court reiterated that the delay in lodging FIR and the contradictions in the prosecution witness statements have not been properly explained.

“At the outset, it would be noticed that there is no substratum whatsoever laid down by the petitioner in order to establish the prosecution case against the respondent nos.1 to 3. Petitioner/complainant has filed a report at Police Station Gogoan, District Khargone on 05.09.2012 on the basis of which FIR was filed, however, the reason for not filing the report at Police Station Dahod is mentioned as she has been threatened by the respondents in front of the Police Station, whereas there is not written proof with regard to the same…”, the court observed in the order.

Moreover, the doctor examined by the trial court did not mention the exact period of injury inflicted upon the petitioner which is also simple in nature.

“…Since the period of injury has not been properly explained on the basis of the statement of doctor, it cannot be assumed that these injuries were caused by respondent…”, the court further explained as to why the trial court and appellate court have rightly found the prosecution version to be untrustworthy.

The criminal revision petition was therefore dismissed and the orders of acquittal made by the lower courts were affirmed by the High Court.

Advocate Akhil Godha appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Ritu Raj Bhatnagar appeared for Respondents 1 to 3.

Case No: Criminal Revision No. 1274 of 2020

Click Here To Read/ Download Order