Acquittal by subordinate court cannot be converted into conviction by High Court : Allahabad High Court

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has observed that a finding of acquittal recorded by the subordinate court cannot be converted into conviction by High Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 401 (3) CrPC.

A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania passed this order while hearing a Criminal Revision filed by Ambika Singh.

The revision alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing the revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.01.2009 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faizabad.

As per case of prosecution some altercation took place on 16.04.2003 between the revisionist-Ambika (First informant) and Raj Kumar Singh at Sugarcane Weighing Centre, Mayo Bazar, Village Viyulpur and in regard to this incident an FIR was lodged under Section 504/506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station Maharajganj, District Faizabad and after investigation charge-sheet was filed. Upon denial the accused was put to trial. In the trial prosecution examined four witnesses.

The Court noted that the trial court convicted the private opposite party-Raj Kumar Singh vide judgment and order dated 30.09.2008 and thereafter the private opposite party- Rajkumar Singh preferred the appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, in Criminal Case under Sections 504/506(2) IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station Maharajganj, District Faizabad and vide judgment under revision dated 29.01.2009, the appellate court acquitted the private opposite party- Raj Kumar Singh.

The Court said that the scope of criminal revision is very limited as observed by the Apex Court in the catena of judgments. Revisional Jurisdiction can be invoked where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Another well accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The revisional court has simply to confine to the legality and propriety of the findings and as to whether the subordinate court acted within its jurisdiction.

The Court further said that, a revisional court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate and impose and substitute its own findings. Sections 397 to 401 CrPC confer only limited power on revisional court to the extent of satisfying the legality, propriety or regularlity of the proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like appellate court for other purposes including the recording of new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence. The High Court in its revisional powers could not have interfered with the findings of facts recorded by the lower court only because the High Court could have arrived at a different or another conclusion. Findings of acquittal recorded by subordinate court cannot be converted into conviction by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 (3) CrPC.

In view of settled principles, the Court considered the judgment and order under revision with the assistance of Diwaker Singh, AGA.

On due consideration the Court found that the appellate court after due consideration of the statement of informant namely Ambika Singh(revisionist) as also the statement of his son Sheo Kumar Singh, who appeared before the trial court and stated that incident took place at Sugarcane Weighing Centre, between him and private opposite party Raj Kumar Singh and not between the private opposite party Raj Kumar Singh and the informant passed the judgment of acquittal.

“The Court also considered the fact that Suresh alias Ramakant Upadhyay and Ram Bahadur Singh respective, who are the witnesses of fact, did not support the story of the prosecution.

The Court is of the view that the findings of the appellate court is not perverse as the same are basically based on the statement of Sheo Kumar, who is son of injured- informant Ambika Singh”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.