RAJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUJATHA was the wife one Mohan. With in a few days after their wedding, Mohan left India and went to Soudi Arabia where he was employed leaving SUJATHA in his parental home. But within ten months he received the horrifying information that SUJATHA committed suicide by jumping into a well. Three brothers of Mohan were arraigned in the court of a judicial magistrate of first class on the allegation that they subjected SUJATHA to such cruelly as to drive her to commit suicide. Learned magistrate convicted those three persons of the offence under S. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. When the convicted persons jointly filed an application before the Sessions Court, learned Sessions Judge, without going into the merits of the evidence, remanded the case to the trial court directing the magistrate to resort to committal proceedings on the premise that accused should have been tried for the offence under S. 306 of the Indian Penal Code. This revision petition is filed by the accused persons in challenge of the said order of remand.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, suo mote revisional proceedings were also initialed on the direction of the learned judge of this Court in charge of the District concerned who perused the judgment during calendar review.

(3.) IN State v. T. Narayana (AIR 1962 SC 240) the question arose on the following facts: An accused person was tried for offences under ss. 302 and 392 of the Penal Code. Trial court acquitted him of the said offences, but convicted him under S. 411 of the Penal Code. IN the appeal filed by the accused, the High Court felt that the order of acquittal of offences under Ss. 302 and 392 of the Penal code was wrong and hence the High Court remanded the whole case for re-trial. The State then went to the Supreme Court against the remand order. Supreme Court has observed that in an appeal preferred. against the order of conviction and sentence, the High Court cannot use appellate powers for reviewing the acquittal passed in favour of a party.