SEENI AMMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition preferred1 against the acquittal of the accused in S. C. No. 136 of 1959 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions-Judge of Tirunelveli. That prosecution related to the murder of a man named Ramaswami Naicker, who undoubtedly received gunshot injuries at the spot of offence (Nadu Street in Varaganur village)' at about sunrise on 17-4-1959. and succumbed to-those injuries. The revision proceeding is preferred' before me by Seeni Ammal (P. W. I), the wife of the victim, Under Section 439 Cr. PC In view of the importance of clarifying the procedure with respect to the petitions of this character particularly in the context of the restriction of out powers Under Section 439 (4) Cr. PC, we have directed the issue of notice to the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and heard both the learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the revision petitioner extensively, even at the present stage of admission of this petition,

(2.) BEFORE proceeding into the facts of the case to any extent, it is necessary to make clear certain implications of the situation itself. The growth of criminal jurisprudence has been a progressive substitution of the idea that grave crime primarily affects the social fabric, since it imperils that fundamental security of person and property without which society is impossible, for the idea that such Crime is a wrong inflicted upon individuals, to be redressed by vengeance. Historically speaking, it Is only gradually that the lex talionis or the rule of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, has been superseded by an impersonal scheme of punishment for grave crime, the prosecution for which is primarily the concern of the agencies of the State, precisely as the detection of which is the concern of one limb of the administration, the Department of Police. But, even at present, there are anomalies. The machinery of the State, adequate as it is for most cases, may function imperfectly or eccentrically in a particular case. That is why, under the Criminal Procedure Code as it stands today, even a prosecution under a grave crime may be as a result of a Complaint preferred by a private party. Further, where the accused has been improperly acquitted In a prosecution for grave crime, it is again beyond Controversy that the State should be primarily concerned, for the fact that a guilty person escapes the retribution of justice even where the material for convicting him is true and adequate, is one which affects public interest and the welfare of the State, equally with a wrongful conviction. Nevertheless, it may happen that an erroneous acquittal does not always lead to a prompt action by the agencies of the State, it may be for a Variety of reasons. Hence, in Section 417 (3) Cr. PC, as now enacted (Amendment Act XXVI of 1955), provision has been made for the private complainant to obtain Special leave to appeal from an acquittal. But, an appeal from an acquittal and a proceeding in revision differ in this essential respect. Even if we are fully convinced that the acquittal was erroneous, and that there has been a miscarriage of justice, our powers Under Section 439 (4) Cr. PC are circumscribed, in the sense that while we might certainly order a retrial of the case, we cannot, in the. exercise of revisional jurisdiction, convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, and pass an appropriate sentence.

(3.) IN Harihar v. State of West Bengal , their Lordships of the Supreme Court said down the law following D. Stephens v. Nosibolla that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High -Court Under Section 439 Cr. PC was not to be lightly exercised, particularly when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Government also has a right of appeal Under Section 417 Cr. PC In such cases, it must be established clearly that the interests of public justice require interference in order to prevent a gross miscarriage of (justice. The jurisdiction is not to be merely invoked because the trial court did not appreciate the evidence properly, and hence a different view is possible. In Direndranath v. Mukundlal (S) , it is again stressed that merely because a different view of the evidence can bo taken, interference in revision would not be justified, when there is an application by a private party to set aside an order of acquittal But this deci- sion appears to be prior to the amendment of Section 417 Cr. PC pointed out earlier as the decision states the law to be that a private party has no right of appeal against an acquittal as such.