Revisional jurisdiction is not meant for re-evaluating evidence….. The court concluded that the impugned orders were not grossly erroneous, and there was no palpable error or non-consideration of material aspects or evidence.
Title: Manohari vs. State
Citation: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 264/2005
Decided on: on 21 December, 2023
Coram: JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Introduction
The Rajasthan High Court follows the rules of review jurisdiction; the court determined that the decisions made by the lower court had neither a glaring error nor a failure to take important evidence into account. With an emphasis on the rigorous evaluation of eyewitness testimony and supporting evidence, the conviction and the orders of the trial court and appellate court were upheld. The court’s approach demonstrates the narrow extent of revision jurisdiction and is consistent with accepted legal norms thus, the revision petition filed by Manohari challenging the conviction under Section 304-A of IPC was dismissed by Justice Sameer Jain.
Facts of the case
An accident occurred on June 18, 1999, due to which FIR No. 376/1999 was filed under Section 304-A of the IPC. The prosecution accused petitioner Manohari of reckless and irresponsible driving based on witness testimony. The petitioner was found guilty by the trial court on December 13, 2001, and the District and Sessions Judge affirmed this result on March 15, 2005. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted the current revision petition, contesting these rulings.
Court’s Observation and Analysis
In his ruling, Justice Sameer Jain emphasized the following crucial points:
The court stressed that fixing patent flaws, jurisdictional problems, or legal errors should be the main priorities when using revision jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Reevaluating evidence is not the purpose of revisional jurisdiction. The order emphasized the need to carefully evaluate eyewitness testimony and to identify the petitioner as the driver involved. It also gave a detailed examination of the considerations made by the trial court and the appellate court. The court rejected the argument that witnesses were manufactured or planted, noting instead the consistency of eyewitness testimony throughout cross-examination. The petitioner was driving carelessly, which resulted in the deadly collision, according to the court’s analysis of the material, which included the post-mortem report and site map. Ultimately, the court found that there was no evident mistake or failure to take into account relevant facts or evidence, and that the contested orders were not blatantly incorrect. The orders upholding the conviction were thus sustained, and the revision petition was dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
