Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an incident dated 13.03.1998 during the Holi festival. Initially, Dharampal lodged a complaint alleging assault by Om Parkash (complainant) and Om Parkash (deceased), but no FIR was registered. Instead, an FIR was registered on 14.03.1998 on the statement of Om Parkash (complainant) implicating the appellants Mahabir, Raj Kumar, Dayanand, and Krishan Kumar. The trial court acquitted these four accused but convicted Dharampal under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The State did not appeal the acquittal. The father of the deceased, Chandgi Ram, filed a criminal revision before the High Court challenging the acquittal. The High Court, without issuing notice to the acquitted accused, allowed the revision and convicted them under Section 302 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's action was in direct violation of Section 401(3) CrPC, which expressly prohibits conversion of acquittal into conviction in revisional jurisdiction. Additionally, the revisionist had died before the judgment, and the accused were not served with notice, violating natural justice. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the trial court's acquittal, and directed the release of the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Conversion of Acquittal into Conviction - Section 401(3) CrPC - The High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction due to the express statutory bar under Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The only course available in exceptional cases is to order a retrial. (Paras 6, 18-19) B) Criminal Procedure - Natural Justice - Notice to Accused - Section 401(2) CrPC - No order prejudicial to the accused can be passed unless he has an opportunity of being heard. The High Court proceeded ex-parte without issuing notice to the acquitted accused, violating principles of natural justice and Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. (Paras 6, 21-25) C) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Abatement - Death of Revisionist - The revision petition filed by the father of the deceased abated upon his death in December 2023, yet the High Court proceeded to decide it, which was improper. (Paras 6, 14) D) Legal Maxim - Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit - Courts should not harm a litigant by their own mistake; if a person is harmed by a mistake of the court, he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 read with Section 397 CrPC could convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, and whether the proceedings were vitiated for want of notice to the accused.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 27.08.2024, restored the trial court's acquittal dated 05.10.2005, and directed the release of the appellants from custody unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction cannot convert acquittal into conviction
- Section 401(3) CrPC bar
- Natural justice requires notice to accused
- Actus curiae neminem gravabit
- Revision not maintainable after death of complainant
