HC Will Not Be Justified In Interfering With An Acquittal Order Simply Because The Trial Court Misapplied The Law Or Misapplied The Evidence

While taking a very principled and legal stand, the Single Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Pankaj Jain in an extremely laudable, learned, landmark and latest judgment titled Sarabjit Jain vs State of Punjab & Ors in CRR No. 2925 of 2018 (O&M) that was reserved on August 18 and then finally pronounced on August 31, 2022 has minced absolutely no words to unambiguously hold that the High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the Trial Court has taken a wrong view of law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. This is what forms the real crux of this notable judgment. It must be mentioned here that the factual matrix of the case as we see here is that the present petition is the revision of the order that was passed earlier by the Trial Court. It must also be pointed out here while recalling that when the statement was made by the petitioner, the proceedings were set in motion, and on the basis of that statement, the FIR was registered under Sections 447, 551, 506, 148 and 149. It must be noted that the Trial Court after analyzing the available evidence that was presented before it, the Trial Court acquitted the accused and stated that the prosecution has failed to prove its case.

CRM No. 30827 of 2018

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced oral judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Pankaj Jain sets the Ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in the very beginning that:
This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 305 days in filing the revision petition. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Delay of 305 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Application stands disposed off.

CRR No. 2925 of 2018

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in this opening para of this learned judgment that:
The petitioner is in revision against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib dated 19.07.2017 whereby judgment of acquittal passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gidderbaha dated 06.12.2016 has been affirmed. The proceedings were set in motion on the statement made by the petitioner that on 17.04.2012, respondents and his co-sharers started raising construction in the land of the complainant. On the basis of the statement made by the petitioner, F.I.R. No. 17 dated 18.04.2012 registered under Sections 447, 511, 506, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Kotbhai, District Muktsar Sahib was registered. The accused were put to trial.

To be sure, the Bench then points out in the next para of this brilliant judgment that:
Trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and accordingly, acquitted the accused of the charges vide judgment dated 06.12.2016.

As we see, the Bench then lays bare in the next para of this remarkable judgment that:
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal. The Appellate Court found that the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence and there is no material/evidence on record which has been excluded while appraising the evidence on record and thereby affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court.

As it turned out, the Bench then goes on to specify in the next para of this concise judgment that:
Counsel for the petitioner argues that the Courts below have wrongly appreciated the evidence on record which has resulted in the perverse findings. It has been contended that the benefit of doubt has been wrongly extended to the respondents on account of defective investigation conducted by the police. It is contended that this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction should re-appreciate the evidence and reversed the findings recorded by the Courts below.

Needless to say, the Bench then observes in the next para of this commendable judgment that:
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the record of the case.

Most significantly, what constitutes the real cornerstone of this laudable judgment is then encapsulated best in this next para wherein it is explicitly laid down that:
The scope of revision against acquittal stands settled by Apex Court in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and another, 2002, AIR (SC) 2907 wherein it has been held that:
We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the high court was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the informant under section 401 of the code of criminal procedure, sub-section (3) of section 401 in terms provide that nothing in section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a high court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional court, prohibiting it from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by section 401 of the code of criminal procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which the exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but the decision of this court has laid down the parameters of the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the high court under section 401 of the code of criminal procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. (See AIR 1951 Supreme Court 196 : D. Stephens v. Nosiballa; AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1788 : KC Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh; (1973) 2 SCC 583 : Akalu Ahir and others v. Ramdeo Ram; AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1854; Patakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju and others v. Bonapalli Peda Appadu and another and AIR 1968 Supreme Court 707 : Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh).

As a corollary and no less significant is what is then pointed out so very rightly in the next para of this noteworthy judgment wherein it is held that, Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh’s case (supra), no case for exercising revisional jurisdiction is made out.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding aptly in the final para of this learned judgment that:
Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed.

All told, we thus see that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it indubitably clear by this notable judgment that the High Court will not be justified in interfering with an acquittal order simply because the Trial Court has misapplied the law or has misapplied the evidence. Of course, the Single Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Pankaj Jain has cited the most relevant judgment in this regard as we have discussed quite elaborately hereinabove! The same must be always followed and adhered to in letter and spirit in similar such cases by all the High Courts in our country! It definitely merits just no reiteration that there can be just no denying or disputing it! Let’s fervently hope so that the same shall always be followed in practice abiding by the same by all the High Courts in our country and not in breach!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh