Criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of India, stemming from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s decision to overturn an acquittal and convict individuals for murder. The Supreme Court examines whether the High Court overstepped its revisional jurisdiction by convertingan acquittal into a conviction, especially as Indian law generally prohibits this and the victims’ right to appeal against an acquittal only became law after the initial acquittal. Furthermore, the court critiques the High Court’s reliance on a hostile witness’s police statement instead of their trial testimony and highlights the unlawful detention of the appellants, leading to an award of compensationdue to theState Government’s responsibility for appointing an inadequatePublic Prosecutor.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 401 read with Section 397 – Revisional jurisdiction – Conviction without affording opportunity – Revision against conviction by father of the deceased – Whether the High Court committed any error 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? – Appellant who is an accused person cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of the express provision contained in Section 401(2) of the Code – High Court committed an egregious error in reversing the acquittal and passing an order of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants herein.
(Para 31, 44 and 46)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 372 – Interpretation of statute – Proviso – Held that the ‘proviso’ is a substantive enactment, and is not merely excepting something out of or qualifying what was excepting or goes before – Therefore, by adding the ‘proviso’ in Section 372 of CrPC by this amendment, a right has been created in favour of the victim.
(Para 54)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 372 – Interpretation of statute – Is proviso to Section 372 Cr PC is an exception? – In the present context, given the text of Section 372 and the scheme of the Act, it is clear that the proviso establishes an independent right, and must be interpreted within that framework – Section 372 forbids appeals unless otherwise authorized by the Code, or by another law – The proviso, however, states that the victim shall have the right to appeal under certain circumstances – Given the rule enacted in Section 372, it cannot be said that the proviso to that provision carves out an exception to the rule – According to the rule in Section 372, appeals must be in accordance with the Code; according to the proviso- which is itself part of the Code – victims have the right to appeal under certain circumstances – The proviso, therefore, is not an exception to Section 372, but a stand-alone legal provision.
(Para 63 and 67)
(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 372, 401(5) – Interpretation of statute – Is proviso added in year 2009 to Section 372 Cr PC is retrospective? – Held that the amendment so made in Section 372 CrPC by adding a proviso in the year 2009 creating a substantive right of appeal is not retrospective in nature – A statute which creates new rights shall be construed to be prospective in operation unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication – It is, therefore, clear that in the year 2006 when the judgement of acquittal was passed, the de facto complainant had no right to challenge the impugned order passed in 2006 by way of filing the appeal – In such circumstances sub section (5) of Section 401 CrPC has no application in the present case.
(Para 72)
(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 161, 162 – Evidence Act, 1872, Section 145 – Evidence – Statement to police u/s 161 – Admissibility in evidence – High Court relied upon the police statement of PW-7 recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC instead of his oral testimony before the trial court – Section 162 of the CrPC expressly provides that the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC shall not be used for any purpose save as provided in Section 162, and the Proviso to Section 162 clearly says that, any part of the statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, to contradict such witness in the manner provide in Section 145 of the Evidence Act – And when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but only for the purpose of explaining any matter referred to in the cross-examination – 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 CrPC 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.
(Para 74 to 76 and 81)
(F) Constitution of India, Article 21 – Unlawful detention of appellants – Compensation – Appellants are in their 60s and 70s – 26 years after the incident, and nearly 20 years after their acquittal, the appellants were unjustly subjected to rigorous imprisonment for over 3 months, due to the impugned judgment and order, before they came to be released by this Court on bail vide order dated 13.12.2024 – Mental agony suffered by the appellants and their families – The appellants were wrongly denied their liberty, dignity and reputation as they were branded as criminals for this period – The appellants live within a small community in their village, and today, they face social stigma as well, for the above reasons – Public Prosecutor instead of assisting the learned Judges in the right direction by pointing out the correct position of law went to the extent of praying before the Court that the appellants herein deserved capital punishment – It is a different thing that the High Court rejected the prayer of the Public Prosecutor – Judges are human beings and at times they do commit mistakes – The sheer pressure of work at times may lead to such errors – At the same time, the defence counsel as well as the Public Prosecutor owes a duty to correct the Court if the Court is falling in some error and for all this, the State Government is held responsible – It is the State Government who appointed the concerned Public Prosecutor – The State Government should be asked to pay compensation to the three appellants – Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside – The State Government shall pay Rs. 5,00,000/- each to the three appellants towards compensation within a period of four weeks from today failing which we shall take appropriate action against the responsible officer.
(Para 82 to 91, 98 and 99)
Mahabir & Ors. V. State Of Haryana
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 120: (DoJ 29-01-2025)
