VENKATESAN Vs. RANI

JUDGEMENT

(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 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 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 on 19.4.2000 by pouring kerosene on her and thereafter setting her on fire. The marriage between 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 including cash. As such demands 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- appellant 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 of the High Court to challenge the acquittal. By the impugned judgment and order dated 27.04.2006 the High Court held that 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 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 the appellant and Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel appearing for the State.