Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Santuk @ Bappasaheb s/o Bapurao Kharat, filed a criminal revision application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the acquittal of respondents no.2 to 5 (Kalyan Bhagwan Kharat and others) by the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Selu in Regular Criminal Case No.60 of 2004. The respondents were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 323, 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The chargesheet in respect of the fifth accused, Kalyan Bhagwan Kharat, was submitted to the Juvenile Court. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate convicted respondents no.2 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. However, on appeal, the appellate court set aside the conviction and acquitted them. The petitioner then approached the High Court in revision. The High Court heard the learned advocates for the parties. The court observed that the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited and cannot be exercised to reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal. The court found that the courts below had recorded concurrent findings of fact, and there was no illegality or perversity in the acquittal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the acquittal of the respondents.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Sections 397, 401 Cr.P.C. - The High Court in revision cannot reappreciate evidence and substitute its own findings unless the findings are perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and appellate court do not warrant interference in revision. (Paras 1-5)
B) Indian Penal Code - Assault and Hurt - Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC - Acquittal - The trial court and appellate court had acquitted the accused for offences under Sections 323, 325, 504 read with 149 IPC. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the acquittal and dismissed the revision. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below acquitting the respondents for offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the acquittal of respondents no.2 to 5.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction
- Section 397 Cr.P.C.
- Section 401 Cr.P.C.
- No interference unless perverse or illegal
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (12) 3
Criminal Revision Application No.54 of 2010
Mr S.J. Salunke for the petitioner; Ms Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1; Mr N.K. Kakade for respondents no.2 to 5
Santuk @ Bappasaheb s/o Bapurao Kharat
State of Maharashtra & ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against acquittal in a case of assault and hurt.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the acquittal of respondents no.2 to 5 and restore the conviction recorded by the trial court.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the appellate court's order setting aside the conviction of the respondents for offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Judicial Magistrate First Class, Selu) convicted respondents no.2 to 5 for offence under Section 323 IPC. The appellate court set aside the conviction and acquitted them.
Issues
Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the appellate court erred in acquitting the respondents despite sufficient evidence.
The respondents supported the acquittal, contending that the findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited and cannot be exercised to reappreciate evidence unless the findings of the courts below are perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence. Concurrent findings of fact do not warrant interference in revision.
Judgment Excerpts
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent.
Heard learned Advocates for the parties.
Respondents no.2 to 5 were tried before Judicial Magistrate First Class at Selu for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 323, 504 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, in Regular Criminal Case No.60 of 2004.
At the conclusion of the trial, learned Magistrate convicted respondents no.2 to 5 for offence punishable under sections 323...
Procedural History
The respondents were tried before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Selu in Regular Criminal Case No.60 of 2004 for offences under the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted them under Section 323 IPC. On appeal, the appellate court set aside the conviction and acquitted them. The petitioner then filed the present criminal revision application before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 147, 148, 149, 325, 323, 504
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401
