Underlining the scope of revision petition it was held that if two courts have acquitted the accused, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Courts below is not a plausible view. The Court while exercising its revision jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C does not have the power to substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by the lower Courts. This was decided in the case of Sapna v State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors [CRL.REV.P. 681/2018] in the High Court of Delhi by a single bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Subramonium Prasad.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of a property. The accused and his associates, in the absence of the petitioner, broke into the house of the petitioner and ransacked the residence, throwing away the household goods taking into their custody the jewelry, other articles, and documents of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a complaint about offenses under Sections 448/323/34 IPC and after investigation charge-sheet was filed.
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate found that the entire case of the prosecution rested upon the testimony of the petitioner herself. It was found that she had filed a Civil Suit wherein she disputed her possession. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate found inconsistency in the petitioner testimony and held it unreliable. After the perusal of the facts and evidences, the learned Judge acquitted the accused.
The learned Additional Session in appeal observed contradiction in the petitioner testimony in regards to the date of the alleged incident and also with regards to her claim of possession. Thus the learned Additional Session Judge dismissed the appeal.
The High Court placed reliance on the Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 and highlighted the scope of revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C under which it was observed that “If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Though the section does not specifically use the expression “prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”, The jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done.”
The court taking into consideration the judgments passed by the subordinate courts stated that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court after perusing the documents and analyzing the evidence have acquitted the accused. Thus it cannot be said that the judgment of the Courts below is perverse, dismissing the revision petition.
