CASE ANALYSIS OF RAMA AND ORS. vs.

STATE OF
RAJASTHAN (2002)

Submitted by

Uddaish Palya

Roll no. – 1901109

Section- B

Semester- 6th

Subject- Criminal law II (CrPC)

Submitted to

Prof. Sandeep Sharma

Assistant Professor of Law, DBRANLU

Date of submission – 15.06.2022

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonepat

1|P age
Table of content
Introduction… ............................................................................................... 3

Facts of the case ............................................................................................ 3

Issue involved… ............................................................................................ 4

Judgment… ..................................................................................................... 4

Analysis of the judgment… ............................................................................ 4

Other Landmark Judicial Pronouncements .................................................... 8

Conclusion… ................................................................................................. 10

2|P age
Introduction
The principle of 'no one should be left without a remedy' is well-known in the common law
tradition. Throughout the years, this idea has been characterised as a part of natural justice,
which flows through the Criminal Procedure Code like a golden thread. As a result, in
circumstances where the Code does not provide for an appeal, the aggrieved party might
approach the Sessions Court or the High Court to request the exercise of its revisional
competence. The statutes governing revision have given both the Sessions Court and the High
Court concurrent powers to review a case. Under these laws, the High Court and the Sessions
Court have extensive powers in terms of revisional jurisdiction. However, these laws include
limitations on the revisional Courts' powers.1

One important question arises at this point: does the appellate Court (High Court) need to re-
appraise the evidence when hearing a criminal case appeal? In the landmark case of Rama &Ors.
against State of Rajasthan2, the Hon'ble Apex Court elaborated on the topic.

Facts of the Case

A criminal appeal was filed by the appellant challenging a decision passed by Rajasthan High
Court. The High Court after hearing the parties uphold the order of the trial court wherein the
appellant was awarded sentences against the offenses under Section 326 and Section 325 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

However, a surprising facet about the High Court judgment was that it was limited to only 7
paragraphs bereft of any sound reasoning. The appeal was dismissed by merely citing that there
is no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned judge of the trial courtas there is no
patent illegality with the decision.

The appellant being aggrieved with this approach of non-providing any concrete reasoning,
approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.3

1
Vibha Sirathiya, "Revisional Jurisdiction of The High Court" under CrPC., 1973” GO FOR THE LAW, (June 10,
2022, 9:00 PM) http://www.goforthelaw.com/articles/fromlawstu/article25.html
2
2002 SCC Online SC 423
3Id.

3|P age
Issue Involved

The main issue before the Court was to determine whether an Appellate court need to re-appraise
the evidence and provide reasoning while upholding or deviating from a lower court judgment?

Judgment

Justice B.N Agarwal, speaking for the Bench, answered the question in affirmative manner. It
was held that a duty is placed on the appellate court to re-appraise the evidence and cannot
proceed ahead without doing so, especially when the matter is placed for final hearing. The
judgment delivered by the High Court was completely silent on examination, cross-examination
of witnesses, evidence, etc. The Apex Court further added that adopting such procedure would
amount to negation of valuable right of appeal conferred to an accused in the criminal
jurisprudence. Thus, the court set aside the judgment and matter was remitted back to the High
Court to dispose it in accordance with the law. Moreover, it was emphasised that both the parties
shall be given equal opportunities to presenting their case along with relevant documents.4

Analysis of Judgment

It was a landmark judgment that was followed in catena of other judicial pronouncements,
reiterating the law that in a criminal appeal, a duty is enjoined upon the appellate court to
reappraise the evidence itself. To understand the implications of this judgment, it is important to
elucidate the Revision power of High Court in Criminal Cases.

• Revision power of High Court in Criminal Cases

The High Court has broad supervisory authority over the acts of its subordinate courts. The
power is known as the 'power of superintendence' on the administrative side. It's known as the
'obligation of revision' in the legal world. The High Court can order records and review them at
any time, on its own initiative if it so wishes, and especially when illegalities or irregularities
resulting in unfairness are brought to its attention. The High Court's entitlement to have these
problems brought to its attention and review the record for itself is as important as its obligation
to hear appeals and revisions in the administration of justice. Unlike appellate jurisdiction, the

4Id.

3|P age
goal of revisional jurisdiction is to grant supervisory authority. The goal is to correct a mistake in
the justice system. The primary question is whether substantial justice has been served. Article
227 of the Constitution gives every High Court the jurisdiction to supervise all courts and
tribunals in cases of grave dereliction of duty, gross abuse or excess of authority, or violations of
the fundamental principles of justice. And this authority should be used sparingly and only when
necessary.5

When there has been a miscarriage of justice in any way, discretion in the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction should be employed within the four corners of this section. This revisional
jurisdiction should not be taken lightly, as it is not a legal right. Revision is not a legal right, but
rather a procedural option available to a party, whereas appeal is the continuation of the case.
The reviewing court does not go into great detail on the facts and evidence of the case while
determining the legality, propriety, or accuracy of a finding or conclusion.6 The information is
only examined by the Court in revision to satisfy itself regarding the correctness, legality, and
propriety of the findings, sentence, or order, and it does not substitute its own conclusion based
on an extensive review of the evidence.7

The purpose of revisional jurisdiction is to provide higher criminal courts paternal or supervisory
authority. And the goal is to repair miscarriages of justice, which can occur for a variety of
reasons, including:

• a misunderstanding of the law;

Only in extreme situations, when the public interest necessitates intervention to fix an apparent
illegality or avoid a grievous miscarriage of justice, can the revisional jurisdiction be used.
Ordinarily, the jurisdiction is not exercised or employed simply because the lower court

5
Anubhav Pandey, Appeal, Reference and Revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, IPLEADERS (June 11,
2022, 10:00 PM) https://blog.ipleaders.in/appeal-reference-and-revision-under-crpc/
6
id
7
Sakshi Shairwal, Intervention of the High Court and its power to reverse an order of acquittal, LEXOLOGY (June
11, 2022, 11:00 PM)https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1e4f65d6-8a87-45f3-822c-5cfd66f22dd2

5|Page
misinterpreted the law or misappreciated the evidence on the record. The High Court would be
justified in interfering if the trial court had improperly shut out evidence; or if material evidence
had been overlooked by the trial court or the Court of Appeal; or if the acquittal had been based
on an illegal compounding of the offence; or if the Appellate Court had incorrectly held evidence
admitted by the trial court to be admissible by the Appellate Court.8

Powers, which the High Court can exercise in revision:

• Power to order retrial

When High Court shall re-appraise the evidence?

If there is a mistake on a point of law or no appraisal of the evidence, the High Court can
overturn an acquittal. It is not the responsibility of the High Court to reweigh the evidence from
its own point of view and draw opposite inferences when the government has opted not to appeal
the acquittal. Though the High Court has the power to set aside an acquittal order at the request
of private parties in cases where the State does not prefer an appeal, the jurisdiction should be
used only in exceptional circumstances, such as when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or
a manifest error on a point of law that results in a flagrant miscarriage of justice. When the High
Court's order under this Section is based solely on the conclusion it reached after re-appreciating
the evidence, and the Appellate Court's conclusion leading to the acquittal does not suffer from
any legal flaws, the High Court's jurisdiction to set aside the acquittal order cannot be
8
Supra Note 1

6|Page
legitimately invoked. The High Court's revisionary power, while sitting in judgement over an
order of acquittal, should not be used unless the judgement or order of acquittal contains an
obvious illegality or there is a grievous miscarriage of justice. Even if an unconstitutional order
of discharge is interpreted as an acquittal, the High Court has the authority to intervene and
compel a retrial. Before setting aside a discharge order, the High Court may take additional
evidence in the interests of justice.9

When the Appellate Court incorrectly rules out evidence, the High Court should set aside the
acquittal ruling by focusing solely on the admissibility of the evidence and not on the evidence's
quality. In a criminal revision application, the High Court's jurisdiction is severely limited, and it
cannot conduct a re-appraisal of the evidence. The mere fact that a finding of fact recorded by
the trial court may be incorrect in the view of the High Court does not justify the High Court's
setting aside of the acquittal decision in revision.

The High Court's only option when overturning a trial court's acquittal ruling is to remand the
case back to the trial court for a new trial. However, where the accused has been convicted by the
trial court but acquitted by the appellate court, the High Court may order a rehearing of the
appeal or a rehearing of the original case, depending on the details of each case. The right
method is to send back the appeal for rehearing if all of the material is present and it was the
Appellate Court that ruled out the evidence that had been admitted by the trial Court.10

When the High Court exercises its revisional authority, it can overturn an acquittal and order a
new trial if there is:

- an obvious illegality in the Court of Sessions' judgement ordering the acquittal; or

- a grievous miscarriage of justice.

9
TCL Chamber of Law, HC to apply its mind while granting or non granting of appeal u/s 378 of CrPC(June 12,
2022, 10:00 PM)https://www.tclindia.in/hc-to-apply-its-mind-while-granting-or-non-granting-of-appeal-u-s-378-of-
crpc-indianlaws/
10
Supra Note 5

7|Page
Other Landmark Judicial Pronouncements

1. Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and Anr.11

The Supreme Court ruled that the legal position regarding the High Court's revision powers in
the case of interference with an acquittal order is no longer res integra because the law in this
area is well defined. It was noted that the High Court, in exercising its revisionary competence,
does not typically interfere with trial court acquittal judgements unless there is a clear mistake of
law or practise. Interference with a trial court's acquittal order is limited to exceptional cases
where it is discovered that the order under revision contains glaring illegalities or has resulted in
a miscarriage of justice, or when it is discovered that the trial Court lacks jurisdiction to try the
case, or where the trial Court has illegally shut out evidence that otherwise should have been
considered, or where the material evidence that clinches the issue has been omitted. In these
circumstances, the High Court would be justified in overturning the acquittal ruling. The High
Court is prohibited from converting an acquittal into a conviction under Section 401, subsection
(3). Thus, even if the High Court is confident that the accused deserved to be convicted, it would
not be justified in substituting an acquittal judgement for a conviction order. In such
extraordinary instances, the High Court's only option is to order a new trial. In fact, Section
401(3) of the Code prohibits the High Court from turning an acquittal ruling into a conviction
order. The High Court committed apparent illegality in convicting the appellant under Section
304, Part-I and sentenced him to seven years' harsh imprisonment after setting aside the
judgement of acquittal, given the limitations on the High Court's revisional competence.

2. Kaptan Singh and others v. State of M.P. and Anr12

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction when sitting in
judgement over an order of acquittal should not be used unless the judgement or order of
acquittal contains a manifest illegality or there is a significant miscarriage of justice. The
Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's decision in this instance was clearly incorrect and
resulted in a grievous miscarriage of justice. As a result, the High Court was quite correct in
overturning the acquittal order. The Apex Court reiterated the Supreme Court's ruling in the

11
(1998) 7 SCC 223
12
(1997) 6 SCC 185

8|Page
Chinnaswamy case, which held that while the High Court could set aside an acquittal order at the
request of private parties, revisional jurisdiction should be used only in exceptional cases where
there was a glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on a point of law, resulting in a
flagrant miscarriage of justice.

The cases so indicated are: -

• Even though the trial court lacked authority to hear the case, the accused was acquitted;
• When the trial court incorrectly excludes evidence that the prosecution wishes to present;
• When the appellate court incorrectly rules that evidence accepted by the trial court is
inadmissible;
• When the trial court or the appeal court fails to take into account material evidence; or
• When the acquittal is based on the legality of a compounding of an offence.

3. Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State ofGujarat13

It was decided that if the Appellate Court decides that the acquittal decision cannot be supported
for reasons to be recorded because the order is palpably wrong, clearly erroneous, or
demonstrably unsustainable, the Appellate Court can reappraise the evidence and reach its own
conclusions. In other words, if the Appellate Court decides that the Trial Court's order was not
incorrect or manifestly erroneous, the Appeal Court does not need to re-examine the material or
reach its own conclusions.

The Appellate Court was also given the authority to re-examine the evidence presented before
the Trial Court, as well as the conclusions made thereon. If it overturns the Trial Court's acquittal
order, it must state the compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. The High Court reversed
the acquittal verdict in this case by sticking to all of the elements and providing convincing and
appropriate reasons.

4. Surajbhan Singh vs State of M.P14

The appeal is an extension of the trial. An appeal is thus a rehearing of the fundamental issue,
with the appellate court having the ability to reappraise, reappreciate, and analyse all evidence—

13
(2014) 5 SCC 730
14
Cr.A. No. 6213 of 2021

9|Page
oral and documentary—and reach its own judgement. As a result, this Court is of the considered
opinion that, in the absence of any appeal by the State, this Court, in exercising its powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., can remand the case for writing the judgement in respect of the
charge under Section 302/149 of the IPC for murder of Darshan Singh and under Section
307/149 for making an attempt on the life of Ajab Singh (P.W.2), which was erroneously
dismissed by the Trial.

Conclusion
This case was a landmark one setting out the responsibility of High Court to re-appraise the
evidence and give a cogent reasoning while hearing an appeal against conviction. However, it
must be borne in mind that this power shall not be exercised in an ordinary manner. The Apex
court has rightly set aside the Judgment of High Court and remanded the matter to adjudicate it
accordance with the settled principle of law.

10 | P a g e