Supreme Court Upholds Accused's Plea of Autrefois Acquit and Sets Aside High Court's Order Directing Retrial in Criminal Appeal Against Conviction Under Section 423(1)(b) CrPC. The High Court lacked jurisdiction to reverse an order of acquittal for offences under Sections 302 and 392 IPC while disposing of an appeal against conviction under Section 411 IPC; acquittal becomes final unless challenged under Section 417 or Section 439 CrPC, and plea of autrefois acquit under Section 403 prevails.

Case Note & Summary

The case arose from a criminal trial in which the respondent, Thadi Narayana, was charged before the Court of Sessions, Visakhapatnam Division, with offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for allegedly stabbing a minor girl, K. Sriramulamma, with a knife and robbing her gold ornaments on December 27, 1956, at Gangacholapenta. The trial judge, by order dated April 16, 1957, acquitted the respondent of murder and robbery but convicted her under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code for receiving stolen property and sentenced her to two years rigorous imprisonment. The respondent appealed to the High Court against her conviction and sentence. The State did not appeal against her acquittal on the murder and robbery charges. On July 22, 1958, a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the conviction under Section 411 and, observing that gross miscarriage of justice had occurred, ordered a retrial of the respondent on the original charges of murder and robbery. When retrial commenced, the respondent filed an application raising the plea of autrefois acquit under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, contending that the previous acquittal barred retrial. The trial judge rejected the application as bound by the High Court's order. The respondent then filed Criminal Revision No. 636 of 1958 before the High Court, which was placed before a Full Bench. The Full Bench formulated two questions: first, whether the High Court in an appeal against conviction could set aside an order of acquittal and order retrial on charges for which the accused had been acquitted; and second, whether the accused could plead autrefois acquit under Section 403 despite the High Court's order. The Full Bench held that except in exercise of revisional powers under Section 439, the High Court could not order retrial on acquitted charges in an appeal against conviction, and that the accused could plead autrefois acquit unless the acquittal had been adjudicated by the High Court under Section 423(1)(a) or Section 439. Accordingly, the Full Bench allowed the revision, upheld the plea of autrefois acquit, and directed that the retrial for murder and robbery not proceed. The State appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It noted that Section 423(1)(a) deals with appeals from orders of acquittal and is exercisable only by the High Court, while Section 423(1)(b) deals with appeals from conviction and empowers the appellate court to reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order retrial, or alter the finding, maintain or reduce sentence, or alter the nature of sentence. The Court held that the words "the finding and sentence" in Section 423(1)(b)(1) refer to the finding of guilt and the consequent sentence, and the power is confined to appeals against orders of conviction and sentence. It further held that an order of acquittal not challenged under Section 417 or Section 439 becomes final and cannot be indirectly challenged in an accused's appeal against conviction. The expression "alter the finding" in Section 423(1)(b)(2) does not include altering a finding of acquittal. Reliance was placed on Kishan Singh v. The King-Emperor and Jayaram Vithoba v. The State of Bombay. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the Full Bench's decision and dismissed the State's appeal, affirming that the High Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the acquittal and that the retrial was barred.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the Full Bench order; held that the High Court had no jurisdiction under Section 423(1)(b) CrPC to set aside acquittal in accused's appeal against conviction; acquittal under Sections 302 and 392 IPC remained final; plea of autrefois acquit upheld; retrial for those offences prohibited.

Law Points