Supreme Court quashes conviction in murder case, emphasizes limits of revisional jurisdiction: Mahabir & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2025) INSC 120 (29 January 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 120
Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan
Can a High Court reverse an acquittal order in its revisional jurisdiction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal. The court overturned a High Court’s decision that had convicted the appellants after they were acquitted by the trial court. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, with Justice Pardiwala authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case originates from an incident on March 13, 1998, during the Holi festival. Dharampal initially reported to the police that Om Parkash and another Om Parkash had assaulted him. However, this complaint was not investigated. Instead, the police registered a First Information Report (FIR) on March 14, 1998, based on a complaint by Om Parkash, implicating Mahabir, Raj Kumar, Dayanand, and Krishan Kumar. A further statement on March 15, 1998, named Dharampal and Sri Chand as accused.

The Sessions Court acquitted Mahabir, Raj Kumar, Dayanand, and Krishan Kumar on October 5, 2005, but convicted Dharampal. Sri Chand passed away during the trial. The State of Haryana did not appeal the acquittal. However, Chandgi Ram, the father of the deceased, filed a criminal revision application on January 19, 2006, challenging the acquittal. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellants on August 27, 2024.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court acquitted the appellants on October 5, 2005, while convicting Dharampal. The State did not appeal the acquittal. Chandgi Ram, the deceased’s father, filed a revision petition in the High Court on January 19, 2006. The High Court, without proper service of notice to the appellants, reversed the acquittal and convicted them on August 27, 2024. The High Court also dismissed the appeal of the convict Dharampal, who had already passed away. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court proceeded without issuing notice to the acquitted appellants, and the revisionist had also passed away before the judgment.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):

• Section 397 CrPC: This section allows the High Court or Sessions Judge to review records of lower courts to ensure the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order.
• Section 401 CrPC: This section outlines the High Court’s powers of revision. Sub-section (3) explicitly states that “Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.” Sub-section (5) allows the High Court to treat a revision application as an appeal under certain conditions.
• Section 372 CrPC: This section states that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided by the Code or any other law. The proviso, added in 2009, grants victims the right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offense, or inadequate compensation.
• Section 378 CrPC: This section details the procedure for appeals against acquittals. It specifies that the State Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to appeal to the High Court against an acquittal order.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The High Court violated the statutory bar under Section 401(3) of the CrPC by converting an acquittal into a conviction.
• The High Court should have ordered a retrial instead of converting the acquittal, if interference was warranted.
• The victim had no right of appeal when the revision was filed. Therefore, the revision could not be treated as an appeal under Section 401(5) CrPC.
• The High Court violated principles of natural justice and the appellants’ constitutional rights by proceeding without notice and without providing an opportunity to be heard.
• The High Court failed to ensure proper service of notice to the appellants despite multiple orders indicating non-service due to non-payment of process fee.
• The counsel appointed by the court for the appellants had no opportunity to prepare or consult with them.

State of Haryana’s Submissions:

• The High Court could not have reversed the acquittal in its revisional jurisdiction.
• The High Court could have invoked Section 401(5) of the CrPC, treating the revision as an appeal, and with the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, could have treated the revision as an appeal by the victim.
• The proviso to Section 372 CrPC, although introduced in 2009, should have been applied retrospectively.

Innovativeness of the argument: The State’s argument that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC should be applied retrospectively was a novel attempt to justify the High Court’s actions, but it was ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court erred in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the CrPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several precedents to support its decision:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s judgment was illegal and unsustainable. The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by converting an acquittal into a conviction, which is expressly barred under Section 401(3) of the CrPC. The court also noted that the High Court proceeded without proper notice to the appellants. The Supreme Court emphasized that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, granting victims the right to appeal, is not retrospective and was not applicable when the revision was filed.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on several precedents to support its decision, particularly emphasizing the limitations on the High Court’s revisional powers. Cases like Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr. [CITATION] and Joseph Stephen & Ors. v. Santhanasamy & Ors. [CITATION] were used to highlight that a High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction in its revisional jurisdiction. The court also relied on Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors. [CITATION] and Bal Manohar Jalan v. Sunil Paswan & Anr. [CITATION] to emphasize that the accused has a right to be heard in revision proceedings. The court also clarified that Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [CITATION], the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is not retrospective.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the High Court’s overreach of its revisional jurisdiction and the violation of the appellants’ fundamental rights. The court emphasized that the High Court’s decision to convert an acquittal into a conviction was a clear violation of Section 401(3) of the CrPC. The court also highlighted the lack of due process, as the appellants were not given a fair opportunity to be heard. The court also took a serious note of the lack of thorough cross-examination by Public Prosecutors in criminal appeals, specifically with hostile witnesses.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the High Court’s interpretation of Section 401(5) of the CrPC, which allows treating a revision as an appeal, and the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which grants victims the right to appeal. The court rejected the argument that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC was retrospective, clarifying that it applies prospectively from 2009. The court also rejected the argument that the High Court could have treated the revision as an appeal, as the conditions under Section 401(5) were not met. The court emphasized that the High Court should have ordered a retrial instead of converting the acquittal. The court also analyzed the evidence and found that the High Court had relied on police statements which were not admissible as substantive evidence.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice J.B. Pardiwala. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases, emphasizing the limitations of revisional jurisdiction and the need to adhere to principles of natural justice. The court also set a precedent against the retrospective application of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The court also clarified the proper use of police statements and the responsibilities of Public Prosecutors.

The Supreme Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. However, it reinforced the existing principles of criminal procedure, particularly regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction and the right to a fair hearing. The court also reiterated the importance of the role of Public Prosecutors in ensuring a fair trial.

“Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.”

“The High Court has to pass a judicial order because sub -section (5) of Section 401 CrPC provides that if the High Court is satisfied that such revision application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do.”

“A statute which creates new rights shall be construed to be prospective in operation unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication.”

Key Takeaways

• A High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the CrPC.
• The proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which grants victims the right to appeal, is not retrospective.
• Accused persons have a right to be heard in revision proceedings.
• Police statements under Section 161 of the CrPC cannot be used as substantive evidence.
• Public Prosecutors have a duty to conduct thorough cross-examinations of hostile witnesses.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State Government of Haryana to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- each to the three appellants as compensation within four weeks. The court also ordered that the matter be listed again after four weeks to report compliance.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the CrPC. The court also clarified that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is not retrospective. This judgment reinforces the existing legal positions and does not introduce new legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mahabir & Ors. vs. State of Haryana underscores the importance of adhering to statutory limits and ensuring due process in criminal proceedings. The court’s ruling protects the rights of the accused and reinforces the limitations on the High Court’s revisional powers. The judgment also highlights the need for fair and thorough investigations and prosecutions.