Case Presentation

Akanksha Dutta
PRN: 12010123312
IIIrd Year, Div. D
B.A. L.L.B.

State
of
Maharashtra
v.
Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh
Anand
and
Others

AIR 2004 SC 4412 : (2004) 7 SCC 659

Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal and D.M.
Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Decided On: 27.08.2004

Facts

Complainant Smt. Satish Kaur Sahni allegedly beaten up by the

accused who resided in the same building as her and had
dispute with her regarding some drainage issues.

Alleged in the FIR that the accused, barged into the

complainants house, started manhandling and beating her.

This resulted in an FIR by the complainant and also a complaint

signed by other residents of the building.

The Trial Court convicted the accused, and the same was
upheld in appeal by the Sessions Court.

The accused further approached the High Court by way of

criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC.

The High Court set aside the conviction after re-examining and
re-appreciating evidence.

State and complainant approach the Supreme Court by special

leave resulting in the current matter.

ISSUES

Issue 1: Whether the High Court has overlooked

vital evidence showing full implication of the accused
and wrongly acquitted them by entering into reappreciation of evidence.
Issue 2: Whether the High Court exceeded its
powers of revision under Section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.

DECISION

The acquittal passed by the High Court was set

aside

The conviction and sentence passed by the

Magistrate, as confirmed by the Sessions Judge,
was maintained

Directed that the accused be released on

Probation on their executing bond for good
behaviour for a period of one year, to the

CASES REFERRED

Ram Briksh v. Ambika Yadav

Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 1997
Case where respondent was informant of the alleged
murder of his Uncle by the Petitioner
Held: The High Court is advised to not re-appreciate
evidence during revision. Setting aside of acquittal
and remitting case for retrial allowed because of
overlooking of material evidence by lower court that
leads to manifest illegality resulting in gross
miscarriage of justice.

Dulichand v. Delhi Administration

AIR 1975 SC 1960

Case where cyclist died due to alleged negligent and

rash bus driving of the petitioner-accused.
Held: High Court can refuse to re-appreciate
evidence. But re-appreciation of even whole evidence
permitted when High Court confirms the view of the
lower Courts finding it reasonable.

ANALYSIS
Issue 1

The High Courts reasoning that rejects the truth of the

contents of the FIR and the subsequent conviction is to
be criticised on the following counts:
i.

HC acquits accused of the alleged offense

eventhough duly signed medical certificate clearly
states and proves the injuries of the complainant and
their cause; also shows that the complainant was
referred by the Constable from the Police Station
where the FIR was lodged.

ii. Testimony of DW-1 who was one of the signatories to

the complaint made by the other building residents.
None of the 12 signatories were examined as witnesses in
the trial but DW-1 assented to the contents of the
complaint and his signature on it, thereby proving the fact
of such incident to have taken place on the date alleged

iii. HC rejected the presence of common intention

among the accused u/s 34 of IPC. To prove common
intention, not necessary that a pre-arranged plot or prior
concert has to be proven.
It is clear that there was dispute regarding drainage
between the complainant and the accused family.
The act of the accused together barging into the
complainants house, manhandling and beating her a
clear representation of their common intention to cause
hurt to her.

iv. Defense of False Implication-complainant was

motivated by a personal vendetta due to alleged
incident of the complainant having not been able to
purchase some property in competition with the
accused party

Not applicable as incident of competition not in the

recent past
v. Exaggeration by complainant on details like number
of blows presence of recording equipment do not
negate other evidence proving the occurrence of the
beating

Issue 2
i. U/s 397 CrPC call for records and revise a case for
the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to
regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court

ii.

U/S 401 CrPC, HC empowered to act under the

powers of an Appellate court while acting in the
capacity of a Revisional Court. This power can only
be used for limited purpose; do not
give ability
to High Court to act as a second appellate court
[Ram Briksh v. Ambika Yadav].

iii. There was no manifest illegality resulting in gross

miscarriage of justice needing interference of HC in
the form of revision-setting aside the order of

iv. While revising the order the High Court also

undertook a re-appreciation of the evidence put
before the court.

v. Dulichand v. Delhi Administration- HC justified in

refusing to re-appreciate the evidence as power of
revision not as wide as pure appellate.
vi. Minute re-appreciation not advisable under
revision unless it cures a glaring defect in the
procedure or a manifest error in law, which has
resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court rightly restored the order of the

Sessions Court clearly because the High Court had
exceeded its power of revision when it set aside the
conviction.
The demarcation between a Revisional Court and
Court of second appeal has to be maintained by the
courts. Line cant be crossed merely because lower
court mis-appreciated evidence.
Interference allowed only in case of grave injustice
due to overlooking or shutting of material evidence
and wrongly holding evidence inadmissible.