Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Indubai, filed a criminal revision application against the acquittal of her husband and his relatives (respondents) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2003. The trial court (Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingoli) had convicted the respondents under Section 498A IPC in R.C.C.No.202 of 2000, but the appellate court acquitted them on 29.09.2005, holding that the allegations regarding the specific incident date were imaginary and lacked substance. The applicant argued that the appellate court erred by not considering a mistake in the date of the incident. The respondents contended that the revisional court could not re-appreciate evidence under Section 401 Cr.P.C. and that the applicant's own documents, including an application for child custody under Section 97 Cr.P.C., falsified her claims. The High Court perused the impugned judgment and found that the appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence, noting that the trial court had incorrectly relied on the incident of 09.05.2000, which was subsequently washed out. The High Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the acquittal under its limited revisional powers and dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 401 Cr.P.C. - Scope of Interference - The revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is an error of law or perversity on the face of the record - Held that the appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence and the prosecution case was destroyed, hence no interference warranted (Paras 6-9).
B) Indian Penal Code - Cruelty by Husband or Relatives - Section 498A IPC - Acquittal - The appellate court found the incident date to be imaginary and the allegations falsified by the applicant's own documents, including an application for child custody under Section 97 Cr.P.C. - Held that the trial court's reliance on the incident of 09.05.2000 was incorrect as the evidence was subsequently washed out (Paras 3, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. should interfere with the appellate court's acquittal order based on factual appreciation of evidence
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, holding that there were no grounds to interfere with the appellate court's acquittal order. Rule discharged.
Law Points
- Revisional powers under Section 401 Cr.P.C. are limited and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence unless there is a patent error of law or perversity
- Acquittal based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with in revision
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (10) 176
Criminal Revision Application No. 417 of 2005
Mr. P. D. Sangvikar for Applicant; Ms. Usha N. Jadhav for Respondents/Accused
Indubai w/o. Narayan Junghare
Narayan s/o. Ramdas Junghare and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against acquittal in a case under Section 498A IPC
Remedy Sought
The applicant (wife) sought to set aside the appellate court's acquittal order and restore the trial court's conviction
Filing Reason
The applicant was aggrieved by the appellate court's acquittal of the respondents on the ground that the incident date was imaginary and the allegations were falsified
Previous Decisions
Trial court (JMFC, Hingoli) convicted respondents No.1 to 3 under Section 498A IPC on 12.03.2003 in R.C.C.No.202 of 2000; Appellate court (Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli) acquitted all accused on 29.09.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2003
Issues
Whether the High Court should interfere with the appellate court's acquittal in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant argued that the appellate court did not consider that the date of incident was a mistake in writing, and acquitted on a technical ground
Respondents argued that there was no error of law, the evidence was correctly appreciated, and the revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional court under Section 401 Cr.P.C. cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a patent error of law or perversity. The appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence and the prosecution case was destroyed, hence no interference warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed the facts and arrived at the correct conclusion that from the material placed before it, the prosecution case has been destroyed.
Bearing in mind the powers of the High Court under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. and after having gone through the reasons recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
Procedural History
The applicant filed a complaint under Section 498A IPC, which led to trial in R.C.C.No.202 of 2000 before JMFC, Hingoli, resulting in conviction of respondents No.1 to 3 on 12.03.2003. The respondents appealed in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, who acquitted all accused on 29.09.2005. The applicant then filed the present criminal revision application in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 498A
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 97, 401
