VENKATESANversusRANI &ANR.

                     [2013] 9 S.C.R. 105

/
                        VENKATESAN
                               V.
                        RANI &ANR.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2008)
                      AUGUST 19, 2013
                                                                    B
    [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

    CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:

     ss.397 and 401 - Revision against order of acquittal -         c
Scope of - High Court held that order of acquittal deserved
reversal and remitted the matter to trial court for a fresh
decision - Held: Revisiona/ jurisdiction of High Court, while
examining an order of acquittal is extremely narrov.' and ought
to be exercised only in cases where the tria.1 court had            0
committed a manifest error of Jaw or procedure or had
overlooked and ignored relevant and material evidence
thereby causing miscarriage of justice - Further, re-
appreciation of evidence is not to be made - In the instant
case, the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused   E
cannot be held to be a view impossible of being reached --
Keeping in mind the limited jurisdiction for a scrutiny of the
foundation of the order of acquittal passed by the trial court,
the reversal ordered by the High Court cannot be sustained.

     PENAL CODE, 1860:                                              F

     ss. 498-A, 304-B and 302 - Death of a married woman
by bum injuries - Acquittal of husband by trial court - Set aside
by High Court with a direction for decision afresh - Held: The
investigation and the evidence of prosecution witnesses do          G
not reveal any harassment and ill-treatment to the deceased
by the accused prior to her death and, as such, no case uls
304-8 as well as uls 498-A is made out against the accused
- Insofar as the offence u/s 302 is concerned, there is no eye
                               105                                  H
         106       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 9 S.C.R.


·•   A witness to the occurrence -- By the time the witnesses reached
       the place of occurrence, deceased was already engulfed in
       flames - There are contradictions in the depositions of
       prosecution witnesses -- Further, the evidence of the doctor
       of Government Hospital that deceased herself had stated that
     B she had been injured due to bursting of the stove while she
       was cooking, casts a further doubt on the prosecution story -
       Order of High Court is set aside, and that of trial court
       restored.

             The appellant was prosecuted for committing
     C offences punishable ulss 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC, on
       the allegations that he harassed and ill treated his wife
       for insufficient dowry and ultimately burnt her to death
       by pouring kerosene o.n her and setting her on fire. The
       trial court acquitted the appellant, but the High Court in
     D the revision filed by the mother of the deceased, held that
       the order of acquittal suffered from inherent flaws which
       justified a reversal of the same and remission of the
       matter for a fresh decision.

     E         Allowing the appeal, the Court

            HELD: 1.1 The revisional jurisdiction of the High
       Court while examining an order of acquittal is extremely
       narrow and ought to be exercised only in cases where
       the trial court had committed a manifest error of law or
     F procedure or had overlooked and ignored relevant and
       material evidence thereby causing miscarriage of justice.
       Re-appreciation of evidence is an exercise that the High
       Court must refrain from while examining an order of
       acquittal in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under
     G the Code. If within the limited parameters, interference of
       the High Court is justified, the only course of action that
       can be adopted is to order a re-trial after setting aside the
       acquittal. As the language of s.401 of the Code makes it
       amply clear, there is no power vested in the High Court
     H
            VENKATESAN v. RANI & ANR.                      107

to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.         A
[para 7] [113-D-G]

     1.2 In the instant case, PW-1 and PW-2 had stated in their
depositions that there was no demand for dowry by the
accused and that the accused and deceased had married
                                                                  B
on their own volition. No dying declaration was recorded.
However, PW-10, the doctor, who was working in the
casualty section of the Government Hospital, deposed that
when questioned, the deceased had reported to her that
she got injured due to bursting of the stove while she was
cooking. From the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4, the charge       C
against the accused-appellant u/s 304-B of the IPC could
not be sustained. The evidence of PW-12, the 1.0. that the
investigation did not reveal any harassment and ill-
treatment to the deceased by the accused prior to her death,
makes the prosecution case against the accused u/s 304-           D
Bas well as u/s 498Aofthe IPC, wholly unsustainable. [para
8-9] [113-G-H; 114-A, F-H, 115-C-E]

    1.3 Insofar as the offence u/s 302 of the IPC is
concerned, there is no eye witness to the occurrence.             E
PWs-1 to PW-4 though examined as eye witnesses
cannot be understood to have actually witnessed any of
the events that would be crucial for the determination of
the liability of the accused-appellant. By the time they
reached the place of occurrence the deceased was
                                                                  F
already engulfed in flames. There are contradictions in
the depositions of prosecution witnesses. Further, the
evidence of PW-10, the doctor of the Government
Hospital that the deceased herself had stated that she had
been injured due to bursting of the stove while she was           G
cooking, casts a further doubt on the prosecution story.
The absence of the proof of seizure of the material
objects, made by the Mahazar (Ext. P-10) and the
contradiction between the oral testimony and the
contents of Ext. P-9 with regard to the actual place of
                                                                  H
    108      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A occurrence, further demolishes the credibility of the
  prosecution version. [para 9) [115-E-F, G-H; 116-A-B]

       1.5 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
  view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused
  cannot be held to be a view impossible of being reached.
8 Keeping in mind the limited jurisdiction for a scrutiny of
  the foundation of the order of acquittal passed by the trial
  court, the reversal ordered by the High Court cannot be
  sustained. The order of the High Court is set aside and
  the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, restored.
C [para 9-1 O] [116-C-D, E-F]

       Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju vs. Bonapalli Peda
  Appadu (1975) 4 SCC 477, Aka/u Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram
  (1974) 1 SCR 130 = (1973) 2 SCC 583, Mahendra Pratap
D Singh v. Sarju Singh (1968) SCR 287 =AIR 1968 SC 707,
  K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P. (1963) SCR 412 =
  AIR1962 SC 1788, and Logendranath Jha v. Polai Lal
  Biswas (1951) SCR 676 =AIR 1951 SC 316; Vimal Singh v.
  Khuman Singh (1998) 2 Supp. 170 = (1998) 7 SCC 223 -
E referred to.
                        Case Law Reference:
          (1975) 4 sec 411      referred to          para 6
          (1974) 1 SCR 130      referred to          para 6
F
          (1968) SCR 287        referred to          para 6
          (1951) SCR 676        referred to          para 6
          (1998) 2 Supp. 170    referred to          para 6
G
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 462 of 2008.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2006 of the
    High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. No. 1390 of
H 2004.
             VENKATESAN v. RANI & ANR.                        109


      K.K. Mani for the Appellant.

    M. Yogesh Kanna, A Santha Kumaran, S. Sasikala for the
Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                      B
      RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. What are the true contours of the
jurisdiction vested in the High Courts under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter for short 'the Code') while examining an order of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court? Whether the principles           c
governing the exercise of the aforesaid jurisdiction have been
rightly determined by the High Court in the present case and,
therefore, had been correctly applied to reverse the order of
acquittal of the accused-appellant passed by the learned Trial
Court and to remit the matter to the said Court for a de novo         ci
disposal, is the further question that arises in the present appeal
filed against an order dated 27.04.2006 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Madras.

     2. The appellant is the husband of one Anusuya who,
according to the prosecution, was put to death by the appellant       E
on 19.4.2000 by pouring kerosene on her and thereafter setting
her on fire. The marriage betweer. the appellant and the
deceased took place sometime in the year 1998 on the own
accord of the parties. According to the prosecution, after the
marriage, the appellant raised demands for various dowry items        F
including cash As such demand.::; were only partially met by the
parents of the deceased the appellant, according to the
prosecution, harassed and ill treated the deceased and
eventually caused her death on 19.4.2000. On the basis of the
aforesaid facts alleged by the prosecution, the accused-              G
appellailt was put to trial for commission of offences under
Sections 498A, 304-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The
Trial Court, on the grounds and reasons assigned, which will
be duly noticed, acquitted the accused-appellant. Aggrieved,
the mother of the deceased invoked the revisional jurisdiction        H
  l
    110       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A of the High Court to challenge the acquittal. By the impugne,d
  judgment and order dated 27.04.2006 the High Court held thC1t
  the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court suffered
  from certain inherent flaws which justified a reversal of the same
  and for remission of the matter for a fresh decision in
B accordance with law and the directions set out in the said order
  of the High Court.

      3. We have heard Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel for thei
  appellant and Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel
C appearing for the State.

       4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
  acquittal of the accused-appellant made by the learned Trial
  Court is based on a full and complete consideration of the
  evidence and materials on record. It is submitted that cogent
D reasons have been assigned by the learned Trial Court in
  support of the acquittal ordered by it. It is also contended that
  the High Court has erroneously taken the view that the order of
  the learned Trial Court lacks clarity on the vital aspects of the
  case as outlined in the order of the High Court dated
E 27.04.2006. All the issues highlighted by the High Court in its
  order dated 27.04.2006 have, in fact, been dealt with by the
  learned Trial Court. The reversal of the acquittal by the High
  Court is, therefore, contended to be wholly unjustified.

       5. Opposing the contentions advanced on behalf of the
F accused-appellant, learned counsel for the State has urged that
  no acceptable basis for the impugned acquittal is evi
  ent in the order of the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel has
  supported the findings recorded by the High Court by
  contending that there is lack of clarity and absence of
G categorical findings on vital issues of the case which makes it
  imperative that the impugned order of remand made by the
  High Court by its order dated 27.04.2006 be maintained. No
  interference with the same would be justified.              ·

H         6. To answer the questions that have arisen in the present
     '
 VENKATESAN v. RANI & ANR. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 111


 case, as noticed at the very outset, the extent and ambit of the A
 revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly in the context
 of exercise thereof in respect of a judgment of acquittal, may
 be briefly noticed. The law in this regard is well settled by a
·catena of decisions of this Court. Illustratively, as also
 chronologically, the decisions rendered in Paka/apati 8
 Narayana Gajapathi Raju vs. Bonapalli Peda Appadu 1, Akalu
 Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram 2, Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju
 Singh 3 , K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A. P. 4 and
 Logendranath Jha v. Polai Lal Biswas5 may be referred to.
 Specifically and for the purpose of a detailed illumination on c
 the subject the contents of paras 8 and 10 of the judgment in
 the case of Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram (supra) may be usefully
 extracted below.

          "8. This Court, however, by way of illustration, fndicated the
          following categories of cases which would justify the High        D
          Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision:

                (i) Where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the
          case, but has still acquitted the accused;
                                                                            E
               (ii) Where the trial court has wrongly shut out
          evidence which the prosecution wished to produce;

               (iii) Where the appellate court has wrongly held the
          evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be
          inadmissible;                                                     F

                (iv) Where the material evidence has been
          overlooked only (either) by the trial court or by the appellate
          court; and
                                                                            G
1.       (1975) 4 sec 477.
2.       (1973) 2 sec 583.
3.       AIR 1968 SC 707.
4.       AIR 1962 SC 1788.
5.       AIR 1951 SC 316.                                                   H
    112        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 9 S.C.R.


A               (v) Where the acquittal is based on the compounding
          of the offence which is invalid under the law.

          These categories were, however, merely illustrative and it
          was clarified that other cases of similar nature can also
          be properly held to be of exceptional nature where the
B
          High Court can justifiably interfere with the order of
          acquittal."

          "10. No doubt, the appraisal of evidence by the trial Judge
          in the case in hand is not perfect or free from flaw and a
c         Court of appeal may well have felt justified in disagreeing
          with its conclusion, but from this it does not follow that on
          revision by a private complainant, the High Court is entitled
          to re-appraise the evidence for itself as if it is acting as a
          Court of appeal and then order a re-trial. It is unfortunate
D         that a serious offence inspired by rivalry and jealousy in
          the matter of election to the office of village Mukhia, should
          go unpunished. But that can scarcely be a valid ground for
          ignoring or for not strictly following the law as enunciated
          by this Court."
E
         The observations in para 9 in the case of Vimal Singh v.
    Khuman Singh 6 would also be apt for recapitulation and,
    therefore, are being extracted below.

          "9. Coming to the ambit of power of the High Court under
F         Section 401 of the Code, the High Court in its revisional
          power does not ordinarily interfere with judgments of
          acquittal passed by the trial court unless there has been
          manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with
          the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is limited
G         only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order
          under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused
          miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial court
          has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial court

H   s.    (1998) 7 sec 223.
 VENKATESAN v. RANI & ANR. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 113


    has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought A
    to have been considered or where the material evidence
    which clinches the issue has been overlooked. These are
    the instances where the High Court would be justified in
    interfering with the order of acquittal. Sub-section (3) of
    Section 401 mandates that the High Court shall not convert B
    a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, the High
    Court would not be justified in substituting an order of
    acquittal into one of conviction even if it is convinced that
    the accused deserves conviction. No doubt, the High Court
    in exercise of its revisional power can set aside an order      c
    of acquittal if it comes within the ambit of exceptional cases
    enumerated above, but it cannot convert an order of
    acquittal into an order of conviction. The only course left to
    the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order retrial."

      7. The above consideration would go to show that the D
revisional jurisdiction of the High Courts while examining an
order of acquittal is extremely narrow and ought to be exercised
only in cases where the Trial Court had i;;ommitted a manifest
error of law or procedure or had overlooked and ignored
relevant and material evidence thereby causing miscarriage of E
justice. Re-appreciation of evidence is an exercise that the Hi~h
Court must refrain from while examining an order of acquittal m
the exercise of its revisional. jurisdiction under the Code.
 Needless to say, if within the limited parameters, interference
of the High Court is justified the only course of action that can F
 be adopted is to order a re-trial after setting aside the acquittal.
As the language of Section 401 of the Code makes it amply
 clear there is no power vested in the High Court to convert a
 finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
                                                                      G
      8. In the present case, the prosecution had examined as
 many as 12 witnesses. PW-1 Thiru Srinivasan is the father of
 the deceased whereas PW-2 Thirumathi Rani (petitioner before
 the High Court) is the mother. Both the aforesaid witnesses had
 stated in their depositions that there was no demand for dowry H
    114      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2013] 9 S.C.R.


A by the accused and that the accused and deceased had
  married on their own volition. The two witnesses had further
  stated that whatever was given by them as dowry items was
  voluntary. Insofar as demand for cash (allegedly made on three
  different occasions) is concerned, PW-1 and PW-2 could not
B account for the source from which the aforesaid payments were
  allegedly made. PW-1 Thiru Srinivasan and PW-2 Thirumathi
  Rani are admittedly not eye witnesses to the occurrence
  because they had come to the house where the accused and
  the deceased had lived only after noticing smoke from the said
C house. PW-3 Thiru Vincent (brother-in-law of the deceased) and
  PW-4 Thirumathi Mary (sister of the deceased) are also not eye
  witnesses to the occurrence. It must also be taken note of that
  all the aforesaid witnesses, i.e., PW-1 to PW-4 had deposed
  that when they had reached the house of the deceased they
  saw her in flames and the deceased was unable to speak as
0
  there was a piece of cloth in her mouth. The aforesaid part of
  the prosecution story, however, does not find support from the
  testimony of PW-11 Dr. Santhakumar who had conducted the
  postmortem of the deceased inasmuch as in cross-examination
  PW-11 had clearly stated that he did not find any blisters in the
E mouth of the deceased. PW-5 Thiru Balaraman did not sign the
  mahazar (Exh. P-10) showing the seizure of a burnt kerosene
  can, a partially burnt saree and a matchbox allegedly recovered
  from the place of occurrence. PW-6 Dr. Prakash had deposed
  that the deceased was brought to his clinic at about 7.30 a.m.
F on 19.4.2000 but considering the burn injuries suffered he had
  referred the case to the government hospital. PW-7 Dr.
  Vijayalakshmi had deposed that though a magistrate had come
  to the hospital to recoFd the dying declaration, the deceased
  was unconscious and 'not in a position to make any statement.
G PW-10 Dr. N. Usha who was working in the casualty section
  of the Chennai Kilpauk Government Hospital had deposed that
  when questioned, the deceased Anusuya had reported to her
  that she got injured due to bursting of the stove while she was
  cooking. PW-11 Dr. Santhakumar had conducted the
H
VENKATESAN v. RANI & ANR. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]                115


postmortem and the most significant part of his evidence has        A
already been noticed hereinabove, namely, that he did not find
any blisters in the mouth of the deceased. PW-12 Thiru
Subramaniyam is the Investigating Officer of the case who had,
inter a/ia, deposed that the investigation did not disclose that
the accused had harassed or ill-treated the deceased Anusuya        s
prior to her death.

     9. In view of the specific case of the prosecution that the
accused had poured kerosene on the deceased and thereafter
set her on fire and had gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth
to prevent her from screaming, which version has been unfolded      C
by PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4, it is difficult to see as to how the charge
against the accused-appellant under Section 304-B of the IPC
could be sustained. The evidence of PW-12 Thiru
Subramaniyam, Investigating Officer of the case, that the
investigation did not reveal any harassment and ill-treatment of    D
the deceased by the accused prior to her death makes the
prosecution case against the accused under the aforesaid
Section as well as under Section 498A of the IPC wholly
unsustainable. Insofar as the offence under Section 302 of the
IPC is concerned, there is no eye witness to the occurrence.        E
PWs-1 to PW-4 though examined as eye witnesses cannot be
understood to have actually witnessed any of the events that
would be crucial for the determination of the liability of the
accused-appellant. By the time they had reached the place of
occurrence the deceased was already engulfed in flames. The         F
fact that PW-6 had stated that the deceased had come to his
clinic unaccompanied by PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 who in their
depositions have claimed otherwise is too significant a
contradiction to be ignored. There is a further contradiction in
the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 on the one hand and PW-12 on            G
the other. According to PW-1 and PW-2 they had made a
complaint to the police station immediately after the occurrence
and thereafter went to the hospital whereas PW-12 had
deposed that the complaint was lodged after PW-1 and PW-2
had returned from the hospital. The evidence of PW-10 Dr. N.        H
    116      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A Usha that the deceased herself had stated that she was injured
  due to bursting of the stove while she was cooking casts a
  further doubt on the prosecution story. The absence of the proof
  of seizure of the material objects, made by the Mahazar (Exh.
  P-10) and the contradiction between the oral testimony and the
B contents of Exh. P-9 with regard to the actual place of
  occurrence, in our considered view, further demolishes the
  credibility of the prosecution version. In the above facts the view
  taken by the Trial Court in acquitting the accused cannot be held
  to be a view impossible of being reached. Keeping in mind the
c extremely limited keyhole available for a scrutiny of the
  foundation of the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial
  Court the reversal ordered by the High Court does not commend
  to us. We have also noticed that the High Court had found the
  order of the learned Trial Court to be vitiated by lack of clarity
  on several counts as specified in its order dated 27.04.2006.
0
  The said deficiencies, when juxtaposed against the reasoning
  of the learned Trial Court, appear to have been adequately
  answered by the learned Trial Court in the light of the evidence
  and the material brought before it.

E        10. For the aforesaid reasons we find it difficult to accept
    the conclusion reached by the High Court in the present matter.
    We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High
    Court dated 27.04.2006 and restore the order of acquittal
    dated 16.07.2003 passed by the learned Trial Court.
F
    R.P.                                           Appeal allowed.