Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2024) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19022
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.644 of 2024)
Decided on: 01.03.2024
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR, Ms. Vithika Garg, Adv., Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Apoorva Agrawaal, A.A.G., Mr. Rajat Singh, AOR, Ms. Rupali Bandyopadhyay, Adv., Mr. Sarthak Chandra, Adv., Mr. Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Adv.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 4 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Appeal against acquittal – Duty of Appellate Court -- Limitation -- Trial Court acquitted the appellants -- Sessions Court convicted the appellants, however, granted a relief of probation -- High Court has not gone into the question, whether the Sessions Court was aware of the limitations of the appeal against acquittal -- 3 prosecution witnesses and 7 defence witnesses have been examined, there is not even a reference to the depositions of the said witnesses in the impugned judgment -- Impugned order set aside, matter remanded for fresh consideration by the High Court.
(Para 3-5)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The appellants were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Trial Court acquitted the appellants. In an appeal against acquittal, the Sessions Court convicted the appellants for the offences which are mentioned above. However, granted a relief of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
4. A perusal of the impugned judgment in the Revision Application shows that the High Court has not gone into the first question which will arise in such revisions. The said question is whether the Sessions Court was aware of the limitations of the appeal against acquittal. The High Court was under an obligation to examine the judgment of the Sessions Court, with a view to find out whether any finding has been recorded by the Sessions Court, while over-turning the order of acquittal, that on the basis of evidence of prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses, the only conclusion which could have been recorded was that the guilt of the appellants was established. This aspect is not adverted to by the Revisional Court. Secondly, though 3 prosecution witnesses and 7 defence witnesses have been examined, there is not even a reference to the depositions of the said witnesses in the impugned judgment.
5. Therefore, there is no option but to set aside the impugned order and to remand the Revision Application for fresh consideration by the High Court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21st June, 2023 is hereby set aside and Criminal Revision No.2614 of 2023 is restored to the file of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court will hear the Revision Application afresh in the light of what is observed in this judgment.
6. All contentions of the parties are left open to be decided by the High Court.
7. It will be open for the appellants to apply for appropriate interim relief in the restored revision application.
8. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.
Appeal partly allowed.
********