Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by Dattatraya Narayan Shitole, the first informant, challenging the acquittal of respondent nos. 1 to 3 (Sadashiv Dada Bhosale, Gopinath Ramchandra Bhosale, and Rajendra Sadashiv Bhosale) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, on 27th February 2001. The respondents were originally charged under Sections 436, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly setting fire to the informant's hut on 1st May 1995, resulting in the death of a child (Ghanashyam) who was inside. The trial court acquitted all accused after trial. The State did not appeal against the acquittal. The informant then filed the present revision. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the scope of revision is limited and the court cannot reappreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence. Since the trial court's view was plausible and the State had not appealed, the revision was dismissed. The court also noted that the informant's remedy, if any, was to file an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. (as amended), but no such appeal was filed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Scope of Interference - Section 397, 401 Cr.P.C. - The High Court in revision against acquittal cannot reappreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence. The informant's revision challenging acquittal was dismissed as the trial court's view was plausible and the State did not appeal. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere in revision against an order of acquittal when the State has not appealed and the trial court's appreciation of evidence is not perverse.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the acquittal of respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Law Points
- Criminal revision
- scope of interference
- acquittal
- appreciation of evidence
- no perversity
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (08) 9
Criminal Revision Application No.191 Of 2001
Mr. B.A. Shinde h/for Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the Applicants; Mrs. Rashmi Kulkarni, Advocate h/for Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3; Mrs. Pratibha Bharad, A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra
Dattatraya Narayan Shitole
Sadashiv s/o Dada Bhosale, Gopinath s/o Ramchandra Bhosale, Rajendra Sadashiv Bhosale, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against acquittal
Remedy Sought
The applicant (first informant) sought to challenge the acquittal of respondent nos. 1 to 3 for offences under Sections 436, 302 read with 34 IPC.
Filing Reason
The applicant was dissatisfied with the trial court's judgment of acquittal dated 27th February 2001.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, acquitted respondent nos. 1 to 3 on 27th February 2001 in Sessions Case No.264 of 1996.
Issues
Whether the High Court should interfere in revision against an order of acquittal when the State has not appealed and the trial court's appreciation of evidence is not perverse.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents despite sufficient evidence.
The respondents and the State supported the acquittal, contending that the revision was not maintainable as the State did not appeal and the trial court's view was plausible.
Ratio Decidendi
In a criminal revision against acquittal, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence. Since the trial court's view was plausible and the State did not appeal, no interference is warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Cri.Revn.Appln. is filed by first informant - Dattatraya Narayan Shitole, on whose report dated 2nd May, 1996, CR No.117/1996 was registered against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3...
After the trial in Sessions Case No.264 Of 1996, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar vide his Judgment and Order dated 27th February, 2001 was pleased to acquit Resp.Nos. 1 to 3...
Procedural History
On 2nd May 1996, the applicant lodged a report leading to registration of CR No.117/1996 against respondent nos. 1 to 3 for offences under Sections 436, 302 read with 34 IPC. After trial in Sessions Case No.264 of 1996, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar acquitted the respondents on 27th February 2001. The State did not appeal. The applicant filed the present criminal revision application on an unspecified date.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 436, 302, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401, 372
