Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Same/Next-Day Release Of Prisoners Granted Bail, Acquittal Or Sentence Suspension

To that end, and in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we hereby issue the following comprehensive guidelines, which shall hereafter operate as binding directions upon all High Courts across the country:

A. Procedural Timelines re Pronouncement of  Judgements/Orders

3 Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1813; Rajan v. The State of

Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 3904/2025.

4 Section 353(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 392, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023; Order XX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

I. Timelines

a. In a matter where the judgement is reserved, the High

Court shall endeavour to pronounce a reasoned

judgement promptly, within a maximum period of 3

months from the date of reserving such judgement.

b. The High Courts shall display extra promptitude in

pronouncing judgements and orders in matters of

personal liberty, e.g. regular bail, anticipatory bail,

criminal appeals (where the convict is in custody), death

references, etc.

c. As soon as the bail application is heard, the order should

preferably be pronounced and uploaded on the same day.

In the event the order is reserved, it is expected to be

pronounced on the next day and uploaded to the website.

d. Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence, or

acquitting a convict in custody should be communicated

to the jail authorities and the Trial Court on the date it is

pronounced.

e. Consequent upon the outcome of serial number (d) above,

the undertrial/convict must be released on the same day

or, at most, on the next day, unless they are required to

be taken in custody in another case, or there is a delay in

complying with the bail conditions, etc.

f. The compliance with the order must be reported by the

Trial Court to the Bench of the High Court that passed the

order. {Para 16}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL / CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 169 / 2025

Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others Vs State of Jharkhand and another 

Author: SURYA KANT, CJI.

Citation:  2026 INSC 604

Dated: MAY 29, 2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, the court can convict or acquit accused on the testimony of single witness?

The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution.

Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact.

Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely :

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

15. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion.

It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.

There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses.

Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 24 and 25 of 1957

Decided On: 12.04.1957

Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B. Jagannadhadas, B.P. Sinha and P.B. Gajendragadkar, JJ.

Author: B.P. Sinha, J.

Citation: AIR 1957 SC 614,MANU/SC/0039/1957

Print Page

Supreme Court: Absconding Accused Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail On Sole Ground Of Co-Accused' Acquittal

Although the aforesaid case dealt with quashing of the

proceedings entirely, the rationale applied therein can be

instrumental in the present case, for the reason that the High

Court, by way of the Impugned Order, granted anticipatory bail

to the Accused solely based on the fact that the prosecution failed

to produce any cogent evidence proving the involvement of the

accused persons named in the Subject FIR, in the alleged offence.

The High Court also took note of certain findings recorded in

favour of the Accused by the trial Court in its judgment dated

24.06.2023 acquitting the co-accused. However, the said

consideration is completely erroneous and perverse in an

anticipatory bail application, especially when the Accused had

been absconding for about 6 years and made a mockery of the

judicial process. In view of such circumstances, the Accused

cannot be permitted to encash on the acquittal of the co-accused

persons. Further, the High Court failed to consider that any

finding recorded by the trial Court either against or in favour of

the absconding Accused is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of

deciding the bail application as the prosecution was not required

to produce any evidence against the absconding Accused during

the trial of the co-accused persons, in view of the judgment in

Moosa (supra). {Para 49}

50. It is apposite to mention that granting the relief of anticipatory bail to an absconding accused person sets a bad precedent and sends a message that the law-abiding co-accused persons who stood trial, were wrong to diligently attend the process of trial and further, incentivises people to evade the process of law with impunity.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………………………OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 15349 OF 2024)

BALMUKUND SINGH GAUTAM Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

Author: VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 157

DATED: 13th FEBRUARY, 2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court:'Bail Is The Rule' Even When Higher Court Orders Arrest Of Accused U/ S.390 CrPC While Considering Challenge To Acquittal/Discharge

 SECTION 390 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

 As we have held earlier, in view of Section 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the revisional Court can exercise power Under Section 390 in a given case. As can be seen from Section 390, when an appeal is preferred against an order of acquittal, the High Court is empowered to issue a warrant directing that the Accused be arrested and brought before it or any sub-ordinate Court. The Court, before which the Accused is brought, may commit him to prison pending disposal of the appeal or admit him to bail. Once an appeal against acquittal is admitted, the status of the person acquitted as an Accused can be said to be restored. That is what is held in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Poosu and Ors.   MANU/SC/0191/1976 : 1976:INSC:94 : (1976) 3 SCC 1. The object of Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that if ultimately the order of acquittal is converted into the order of conviction, the Accused must be available for undergoing sentence. The second object of Section 390 is that when an appeal against acquittal is finally heard, the Accused's presence at the hearing can be secured. Therefore, there is a power vested in the High Court to arrest an acquitted Accused and bring him before it or the Trial Court. The object is that the Accused remains under the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with the appeal against acquittal. It is well settled that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of an Accused. Therefore, as a normal rule, where an order Under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is passed, the Accused must be admitted to bail rather than committing him to prison. It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. This Rule must be applied while exercising power Under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the position of the acquitted Accused is on a higher pedestal than an Accused facing trial. When an Accused faces trial, he is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. In the case of an acquitted Accused, as stated earlier, the presumption of innocence is further strengthened because of the order of acquittal. Only in extreme and rare cases by way of exception can an order committing an acquitted Accused to prison be passed Under Section 390. {Para 18}

19. When a revision application challenging the order of discharge is admitted for hearing, the High Court may exercise power Under Section 390 by directing the person discharged to appear before the Trial Court and by directing the Trial Court to admit him to bail on appropriate terms and conditions. If such an order is passed after the admission of the revision application against the order of discharge, it is a sufficient safeguard for ensuring the presence of the discharged Accused at the time of hearing of the revision application and for undergoing trial, if the order of discharge is set aside. If the discharge order is eventually set aside, such an order Under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed in an admitted revision application against the discharge order will be in the aid of final relief. As held earlier, while exercising power Under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the normal Rule is that the acquitted Accused should not be committed to custody, and a direction should be issued to admit him to bail. This normal Rule should apply all the more to cases where the challenge is to the order of discharge, as the order of discharge is on a higher pedestal than an order of acquittal.

20. Passing an order Under Section 390 directing the discharged Accused to admit to bail is sufficient to procure the presence of the discharged Accused at the time of hearing of the revision application and for undergoing trial if the order of discharge is set aside.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 536-537 of 2025

Decided On: 28.02.2025

Sudershan Singh Wazir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 281,MANU/SC/0293/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Revisional court can not set aside acquittal of accused relying on police or S 164 CRPC statement of witness if that witness has turned hostile to prosecution case

 It appears that the High Court relied upon the police statement of PW-7 recorded Under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of his oral testimony before the trial court. {Para 74}

63. Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure bars the use of statement of witnesses recorded by the police except for the limited purpose of contradiction of such witnesses as indicated therein. The statement made by a witness before the police Under Section 161(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can be used only for the purpose of contradicting such witness on what he has stated at the trial as laid down in the proviso to Section 162(1) Code of Criminal Procedure The statements Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure recorded during the investigation are not substantive pieces of evidence but can be used primarily for the limited purpose : (i) of contradicting such witness by an Accused Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act; (ii) the contradiction of such witness also by the prosecution but with the leave of the Court; and (iii) the re- examination of the witness if necessary.

64. The court cannot suo motu make use of statements to police not proved and ask questions with reference to them which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the court. The words 'if duly proved' used in Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure clearly show that the record of the statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in evidence straightaway, nor can be looked into, but they must be duly proved for the purpose of contradiction by eliciting admission from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. The statement before the Investigating Officer can be used for contradiction but only after strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act, that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction.

80. This Court explained that the trial courts cannot independently use statements made to the police that have not been proven, nor can it base its questions on such statements if they conflict with the witness's testimony in court. The phrase 'if duly proved' in Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that the statements of witnesses recorded by the police cannot be immediately admitted as evidence or examined. They must first be proven through eliciting admissions from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. While statements made to the Investigating Officer can be used for contradiction, this can only be done after strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act. This requires drawing attention to the specific parts of the statement intended for contradiction. This is what is required Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act but even where a witness is confronted by his previous statement and given an opportunity to explain that part of the statement that is put to him does not constitute substantive evidence.

81. There is a catena of decisions laying down the principle in law that the material elicited as contradiction by use of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act is not substantive evidence. Even in regard to the statement recorded Under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by authorised Magistrate, it has been held accordingly. Therefore, the fact that the contradictions are proved through the investigating officers though the witnesses have denied having made such statements, does not translate the contradictions into substantive evidence. Unless there is substantive evidence, it cannot be acted upon legally particularly to base a conviction.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 5560-5561 of 2024

Decided On: 29.01.2025

Mahabir and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala,  and R. Mahadevan, , JJ.

Author:  J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation MANU/SC/0122/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court:Victim can not challenge order of acquittal of accused passed before enactment of proviso to S 372 of CRPC as said proviso has not retrospective effect

  20. She submitted that no right of appeal was available to the victim in law at the time the revision was filed and therefore, there was no scope for the court to even treat the revision as an appeal that 'lay under the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code of Criminal Procedure" or "Code")' at the time as provided for Under Section 401(5) above.

37. The Proviso to the above had not yet come into effect as on 19.01.2006 when the revision petition was filed, for it was added only w.e.f. 31.12.2009. The Proviso says - [Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the Accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.]

i. Thus, the statutory right of appeal by a victim against such acquittal arose only from the date of the amendment w.e.f. 31.12.2009. As the said revision was filed by the father of the deceased on 19.01.2006 well before the above amendment, such right was not available at the relevant point of time.

ii. Therefore, the very first condition Under Section 401(5) itself would not have been possible to be fulfilled, i.e. the right of the victim to appeal did not lie under the Code at the time of filing the revision petition.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 5560-5561 of 2024

Decided On: 29.01.2025

Mahabir and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala,  and R. Mahadevan, , JJ.

Author:  J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation MANU/SC/0122/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme court: What procedure the court should follow while deciding criminal revision against the order of acquittal of accused?

We are not able to understand, on what basis the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction Under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could have converted the finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Sub- Section (3) of Section 401 reads thus: "(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction." {Para 6}

7. There is one another feature which has disturbed us. According to the learned Counsel the High Court proceeded ex-parte without issuing notice to the three Appellants herein in the revision petition, who had already been acquitted by the Trial Court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 5560-5561 of 2024

Decided On: 29.01.2025

Mahabir and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala,  and R. Mahadevan, , JJ.

Author:  J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation MANU/SC/0122/2025

Print Page

Andhra Pradesh HC: Whether the court can summon discharged or acquitted accused as witness U/S 311 of CRPC in the same case?

A plain reading of Sec. 311 does not place any restrictions on the power of the Court to issue summons to a witness if the Magistrate is of the opinion that the evidence of those witnesses is essential to the just decision of the case. After the complainant compounded the offences with Subbarayan and Kannan the latter two persons were acquitted as a result of the compounding and no longer figure as co-accused in the case to be tried along with the revision petitioner. It can no doubt be said that having figured as co-accused at an earlier point of time, the evidence which those witnesses are likely to give is in the nature of an accomplice evidence but then the court will naturally be on its guard in not acting on such evidence unless their evidence is corroborated in material particulars. The absence of evidence corroborating the evidence of these two persons in material particulars cannot impinge in any manner on the power of the court to summon them as witnesses. Sec. 311, therefore, gives ample power to the court to summon witnesses who are no longer accused before him if the Magistrate felt that their evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. {Para 2}

3. A few cases which have been relied upon can now be noticed. In Banu Singh v. Emperor I.L.R. 33 Cal. 1353 a Division Bench expressed itself:

"The law, however, is well settled, and there can be no controversy on the point that an accomplice, if he is not an accused under trial in the same case is a competent witness and may, as any other witness, be examined on oath.........On such a discharge or acquittal he becomes a competent witness against other persons accused of the same offence. The disability to be examined as a witness on oath against the persons who are brought before the court on the same indictment, may thus cease on the withdrawal of the indictment, against him".

The Supreme Court in Jamatraj v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0063/1967 : A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 178, while considering the sweep of Sec. 540. Cr.P.C. (Repealed Code) expressed itself:

"Statutory law confers a power in absolute terms to be exercised at any stage of the trial to summon a witness provided the just decision of the case demands it............If the Court has acted without the requirements of a just decision, the action is open to criticism but if the Court's action is supportable as being in aid of a just decision, the action cannot be regarded as exceeding the jurisdiction."

The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision referred to Dora Harrig's case 1927-2KB 587. In that case five persons were tried, two for stealing and they pleaded guilty and three others for receiving who pleaded not guilty. The first two remained in the dock and the trial proceeded against the other three. They gave evidence on their own behalf and the prosecution case was not quite strong. The Recorder then asked one of the other two accused to give evidence and allowed the prisoner Dora, against whom the evidence went, to cross-examine him but Dora was not asked to enter the Box again to contradict the new evidence. This was held by the Court of Criminal Appeal to be a wrong exercise of the power of the Court. It was an extreme example of the exercise of the power.

4. The observations made in the aforesaid decisions go to indicate that once the court's action is supportable as being in aid of a just decision, no exception can be taken if the Magistrate ordered issue of summons to persons who were no longer before him as accused to be tried in the case against the revision petitioner alone. The learned Magistrate has expressed himself that the witnesses appear to be just witnesses and the petition is worth allowing to meet the ends of justice. These expressions can, in the context, be only construed to mean that the Magistrate felt that the examination of these witnesses is essential to the just decision of the case. This objection raised by the revision petitioner is accordingly rejected.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

Crl. R.C. No. 803/82

Decided On: 17.12.1983

N. Chennimaliay Vs. The Andhra Pradesh Marketing Corporation

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Ramachandra Raju, J.

 Citations

1984 MLJ CRI 1 4651984 ALT 1 3151984 APLJ HC 1 2371983 SCC ONLINE AP 1971984 AP LJ 1 2371984 CRI LJ NOC 139 531984 MLJ CRL 1 4651984 APLJ 1 237, MANU/AP/0245/1983

Print Page

Whether the appellate court can extend the benefit of acquittal to non appealing convict?

If 4 accused are convicted, but only one accused prefer appeal.  If appeal is allowed, can the 3 accused get benefit and whether they can be also acquitted

 Under Indian criminal law, whether the three accused who did not file appeals can benefit from the successful appeal of the fourth accused depends on several key factors and legal principles established by the Supreme Court and High Courts.

General Principle: Benefit of Acquittal to Co-Accused

Print Page

Supreme Court: The court can not acquit Rape Accused if Child Victim is weeping and remaining silent at the time of recording of her evidence

Having considered the principles of law as above, let us now proceed further. We have independently examined the evidence of the witness, by placing reliance on whom the Trial Court recorded the conviction of Respondent-Accused, which was erroneously appreciated by the High Court, the same was reversed by the High Court. The child witness (victim), it is true, has not deposed anything about the commission of the offence against her. When asked about the incident, the trial Judge records that 'V' was silent, and upon being further asked, only shed silent tears and nothing more. Nothing could be elicited from the testimony regarding the commission of the offence. This, in our view, cannot be used as a factor in favour of the Respondent. The tears of 'V', have to be understood for what they are worth. This silence cannot accrue to the benefit of the Respondent. The silence here is that of a child. It cannot be equated with the silence of a fully realised adult prosecutrix, which again would have to be weighed in its own circumstances. It has been held in Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat   MANU/SC/1097/2018 : 2018:INSC:909 : (2019) 17 SCC 523, that a nine-year-old prosecutrix turning hostile would not be a fatal blow to the prosecution case when other evidence can establish the guilt of the Accused. In these facts, 'V' has not turned hostile. Trauma has engulfed her in silence. It would be unfair to burden her young shoulders with the weight of the entire prosecution. A child traumatized at a tender age by this ghastly imposition upon her has to be relieved of being the basis on which her offender can be put behind bars. In almost all other cases, the testimony of the prosecutrix is present and forms an essential part of the conviction of an Accused, but at the same time, there is no hard and fast Rule that in the absence of such a statement a conviction cannot stand, particularly when other evidence, medical and circumstantial, is available pointing to such a conclusion. Reference can be made to State of Maharashtra v. Bandu alias Daulat   MANU/SC/1411/2017 : 2017:INSC:1047 : (2018) 11 SCC 163, wherein the prosecutrix was "deaf and dumb and mentally retarded". The Court held that even in the absence of her being examined as a witness, other evidence on record was sufficient to record conviction of the Accused. The principle of law, therefore, is that if the prosecutrix is unable to testify, or for some justifiable reason remains unexamined, the possibility of conviction is automatically excluded. At this stage, it is important to record that we should not for a moment be understood saying that a person with a disability is by definition an incompetent witness. This Court in Patan Jamal Vali v. State of A.P.   MANU/SC/0323/2021 : 2021:INSC:272 : (2021) 16 SCC 225 frowned upon an earlier observation made by this Court in Mange v. State of Haryana   MANU/SC/0165/1979 : (1979) 4 SCC 349, wherein the Court observed "apart from being a child witness, she was also deaf and dumb and no useful purpose would have been served by examining her." {Para 17}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 2017

Decided On: 18.03.2025

State of Rajasthan Vs. Chatra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0354/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Clean Acquittal Of Accused After Long Undertrial Custody May Give Rise To Claim For Compensation

  There are cases where clean acquittal is granted by the criminal courts to the Accused after very long incarceration as an under trial. When we say clean acquittal, we are excluding the cases where the witnesses have turned hostile or there is a bona fide defective investigation. In such cases of clean acquittal, crucial years in the life of the Accused are lost. In a given case, it may amount to violation of rights of the Accused Under Article 21 of the Constitution which may give rise to a claim for compensation.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4011 of 2024.

Decided On: 26.09.2024

V. Senthil Balaji Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1065/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: High Courts Can't Convert Order Of Acquittal To Conviction Under Revision Jurisdiction U/S 401 of CRPC

The learned counsel for the appellant would firstly submit that the High Court has limited power of Revision under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C’). More importantly, under sub-section (3) of Section 401, the High Court is not competent to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. {Para 4}

6. The sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. clearly says that the High Court does not have the authority to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising its Revisional power. But that precisely was done by the High Court under the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2023.

7. The impugned decision of the High Court is therefore found to be unsustainable. If the High Court was convinced about a wrongful acquittal, the High Court in Revision could not have ordered for conviction. It ought to have remitted the matter back to the appellate court to re-appreciate the matter. This course was not adopted.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

C.N. SHANTHA KUMAR Vs  M.S. SRINIVAS 

Dated: SEPTEMBER 02, 2024.

Print Page

Allahabad HC: Revisional court can not convert finding of acquittal into conviction

The scope of criminal revision is very limited as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. Revisional Jurisdiction can be invoked where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Another well accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The revisional court has simply to confine to the legality and propriety of the findings and as to whether the subordinate court acted within it's jurisdiction. A revisional court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate and impose and substitute its own findings. Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. confer only limited power on revisional court to the extent of satisfying the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like appellate court for other purposes including the recording of new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence. The High Court in its revisional powers could not have interfered with the findings of facts recorded by the lower court only because the High Court could have arrived at a different or another conclusion. Findings of acquittal recorded by subordinate court cannot be converted into conviction by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s. 401(3) Cr.P.C. {Para 6}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)

Criminal Revision Defective No. 8 of 2010

Decided On: 22.09.2022

Ambika Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Citation: MANU/UP/3201/2022.

Print Page

What are basic principles for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by high court at the instance of a private complainant?

The High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a private complainant and, therefore, it is necessary to notice the principles on which such revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Without making the categories exhaustive, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court at the instance of private complainant (1) where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible, (3) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused, (4) where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or the appellate court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. {Para 9}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2420 of 2009 

Decided On: 17.12.2009

Sheetala Prasad and Ors. Vs. Sri Kant and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, JJ.

Author: J.M. Panchal, J.

Citation:  AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1140, 2010 (2) SCC 190,MANU/SC/1915/2009.

Print Page

Supreme Court Reiterates Principles To Be Adhered By Appellate Court While Reversing Acquittal

 From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: {Para 42}

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the Accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the Accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara and Ors. v. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/1058/2023 : 2023:INSC:858 : (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal Under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure as follows:

8.1. The acquittal of the Accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;

8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and

8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the Accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.

39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court in favour of the Accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:

(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;

(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the Accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2010

Decided On: 19.04.2024

Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0329/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: To Prove S.27 Evidence Act Statement, Investigating Officer Must Narrate What Accused Stated; Merely Exhibiting Memorandum Not Enough

Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/1324/2022 : 2022:INSC:1075, wherein this Court held that mere exhibiting of memorandum prepared by the Investigating Officer during investigation cannot tantamount to proof of its contents. While testifying on oath, the Investigating Officer would be required to narrate the sequence of events which transpired leading to the recording of the disclosure statement. {Para 65}

66. If we peruse the extracted part of the evidence of the Investigating Officer(PW-27)(reproduced supra), in the backdrop of the above exposition of law laid down by this Court, the interrogation memos of the Accused A-2(Exhibit P-15) and A-1 (Exhibit P-16), it is clear that the Investigating Officer(PW-27) gave no description at all of the conversation which had transpired between himself and the Accused which was recorded in the disclosure statements. Thus, these disclosure statements cannot be read in evidence and the recoveries made in furtherance thereof are non est in the eyes of law.

67. The Investigating Officer(PW-27) also stated that in furtherance of the voluntary statements of Accused(A-1 and A-2), he recovered and seized two axes and one koyta produced by A-1 in the field of Ansari and one jambiya produced by A-2. The Investigating Officer(PW-27) nowhere stated in his deposition that the disclosure statement of the Accused resulted into the discovery of these weapons pursuant to being pointed out by the Accused.

68. The Investigating Officer(PW-27) further stated that he arrested Accused A-3, recorded his voluntary statement and seized two sickles. However, neither the so called voluntary statement nor the seizure memo were proved by the Investigating Officer(PW-27) in his evidence.

69. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that neither the disclosure memos were proved in accordance with law nor the recovery of the weapons from open spaces inspire confidence and were wrongly relied upon by the High Court as incriminating material so as to reverse the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2010

Decided On: 19.04.2024

Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0329/2024.

Print Page

Whether the court can acquit accused due to absence of medical evidence if reliable oral evidence is available in the case?

 It is true that unfortunately there is no medical examination as PW3 father of victim, who was an illiterate person hailing from another District, seems to have left with the victim to reach to his native and on the way, he has realized that she was no more alive. Thereafter, he had performed last rituals. Consequently, there is no supportive medical evidence. However, merely absence of medical evidence, is no good ground to discard the direct and ocular evidence of parents coupled with evidence of an independent witness regarding rape. Law does not make it imperative for prosecution to corroborate its case by adducing medical evidence. When direct evidence inspires confidence, case of prosecution can still be accepted. Here is a case of such nature where parents and independent witness, who have seen the incident, have narrated the occurrence while in witness box. Their testimonies have not been rendered doubtful. Hence, even in absence of medical evidence, case of prosecution can safely said to be inspiring confidence and can be readily accepted. {Para 12}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 673 OF 2002

Bhaulal S/o. Dokraji Reswal Vs  The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 06 MARCH, 2024

Print Page

Whether the court can acquit accused in cheque dishonour case on the ground that his unregistered partnership firm is not made accused?

 Thus, it is held that the registration or non registration of the partnership firm will have no bearing insofar as Section 141 of the Act of 1881 is concerned. The provision under Section 141 of the Act of 1881 makes it mandatory to arraign the company or the firm, as the case may be, as party accused in the complaint. This provision or any other provision of the Act of 1881 does not put embargo on making unregistered partnership firm an accused. That being the position and considering the preposition of law spelt out in the aforesaid case, I do not find any reason to take a different view in the matter. {Para 11}

12. In the present case, the cheque has been issued by the partnership firm. The said firm, admittedly, has been not made party accused in the complaint. Further, only the applicant has been made accused in the complaint. The non applicant no.1 has, in his complaint, averred that the applicant is one of the partners, which means that there are at least two partners in the firm. The other partner(s) has/have been not made accused in the complaint and, therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable.

13. The learned counsel for non applicant no.1 submits that this objection was not raised either before the trial Court or before the first appellate Court. This contention is taken on record for the purpose of rejection inasmuch as it is well settled that the question of law can be raised at any stage of the proceeding and before any Court. The contention is, therefore, not sustainable.

14. Learned counsel for the non applicant no.1 then submits that the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court for consideration afresh by giving the non applicant no.1 permission to make the firm as party accused.

15. This submission has been rightly countered by the applicant by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Himanshu Vs. B. Shivamurthy and anr.; reported in MANU/SC/0072/2019 : (2019) 3 SCC 797. The Apex Court, while considering the compliance of Section 141 of the Act of 1881, has held that the company, which was not arraigned as accused in the complaint cannot be subsequently allowed to be added, for the reason that there was no demand notice against the company and thus the preconditions under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 were not complied with as against the company. In the present case as well, the non applicant no.1 has not sent demand notice against the firm and thus, pre-conditions under Section 138 of Act of 1881 have not been complied with. In the circumstances, the request made by the counsel for the non applicant no.1, cannot be accepted.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Revision Application Nos. 92 and 94/2023

Decided On: 17.10.2023

Satheesan Kuttappan and Ors. Vs. P.P. Sudhakaran and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Anil L. Pansare, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/4223/2023.

Print Page

Supreme court has directed that erring prosecution and investigating officers must be proceeded against in the case of unmerited acquittal and wrongful conviction

  Every time there is an acquittal, the consequences are just the same, as have been noticed hereinabove. The purpose of justice has not been achieved. There is also another side to be taken into consideration. We have declared the accused-Respondent innocent, by upholding the order of the High Court, giving him the benefit of doubt. He may be truly innocent, or he may have succeeded because of the lapses committed by the investigating/prosecuting teams. If he has escaped, despite being guilty, the investigating and the prosecution agencies must be deemed to have seriously messed it all up. And if the accused was wrongfully prosecuted, his suffering is unfathomable. Here also, the investigating and prosecuting agencies are blameworthy. It is therefore necessary, not to overlook even the hardship suffered by the accused, first during the trial of the case, and then at the appellate stages. An innocent person does not deserve to suffer the turmoil of a long drawn litigation, spanning over a decade, or more. The expenses incurred by an accused in his defence can dry up all his financial resources - ancestral or personal. Criminal litigation could also ordinarily involve financial borrowings. An accused can be expected to be under a financial debt, by the time his ordeal is over. {Para 17}

20. Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the justice delivery system, in serving the cause of justice. Likewise, every acquittal should ordinarily lead to the inference, that an innocent person was wrongfully prosecuted. It is therefore, essential that every State should put in place a procedural mechanism, which would ensure that the cause of justice is served, which would simultaneously ensure the safeguard of interest of those who are innocent. 

21. On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the concerned investigating/prosecuting official(s) responsible for such acquittal must necessarily be identified. A finding needs to be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental action, whenever called for. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, the concerned official may be withdrawn from investigative responsibilities, permanently or temporarily, depending purely on his culpability. We also feel compelled to require the adoption of some indispensable measures, which may reduce the malady suffered by parties on both sides of criminal litigation. Accordingly we direct, the Home Department of every State Government, to formulate a procedure for taking action against all erring investigating/prosecuting officials/officers. All such erring officials/officers identified, as responsible for failure of a prosecution case, on account of sheer negligence or because of culpable lapses, must suffer departmental action. The above mechanism formulated would infuse seriousness in the performance of investigating and prosecuting duties, and would ensure that investigation and prosecution are purposeful and decisive. The instant direction shall also be given effect to within 6 months.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1485 of 2008

Decided On: 07.01.2014

State of Gujarat  Vs.  Kishanbhai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.K. Prasad and J.S. Khehar, JJ.

Author: J.S. Khehar, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0004/2014

Print Page

Does the Mention of the Expression 'Benefit of Doubt' in a Judgment of Acquittal Indicate that the Acquittal Was Not Honourable?

 However, the fact remains that mere use of the expression ‘benefit of doubt’ in the judgment of criminal court, by itself, would not deprive the employee from claiming that the acquittal was ‘honourable’ or ‘clean’. If in the totality of the circumstances, the court comes to the conclusion that the acquittal of an employee is after consideration of the entire material and recording categorical finding that the guilt is not proved, the fact that the criminal court had also used an expression ‘benefit of doubt’ in the judgment would not constitute an impediment in inferring ‘honourable acquittal’.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.12326 OF 2017

Eknath Shankar Kamble Vs  Chief Executive Officer,

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 8 JUNE 2023

Print Page