Allahabad HC Upholds Six Accused’s Acquittal In Fight Over Irrigation Water That Damaged Complainant’s Grain Crop

On 8 April 1977, a dispute arose when the accused allegedly diverted water into the complainant’s field, damaging his crops. A physical altercation followed, during which the complainant and members of his family sustained injuries; Kuldeep, son of Rameshwar, was struck with a ballam and died.

The accused were charged under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court acquitted them, finding the prosecution case unproved beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant and others filed this revision challenging the acquittal, including on the ground that the trial court had not identified the aggressor or properly considered the injuries. At the hearing, revisionists’ counsel stated that he did not intend to press the revision; the High Court nevertheless proceeded to consider it on the merits.

Under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction over an acquittal is narrow and is not ordinarily a means to reappreciate evidence. Interference may be justified in exceptional cases involving, for example, a manifest error of law or procedure, material evidence wrongly excluded or overlooked, lack of jurisdiction, or resulting miscarriage of justice.

Even where interference is warranted, Section 401(3) bars the High Court from converting an acquittal into a conviction; the appropriate course is to order a retrial. The Court relied on Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 SC 2145; Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh, 1998 SC 3380; and Venkatesan v. Rani, AIR 2013 SC 3320.

The High Court found that the trial court had considered the evidence and recorded findings after scrutinising it. The trial court had noted that the injuries to Kuldeep were not satisfactorily explained, rejected the account of “chheena-jhapti” as unbelievable, and found the complainant’s and injured witness’s testimony unconvincing.

Although the trial court had not made a specific finding on who was the aggressor or whether the accused acted in private defence, the High Court considered that omission in light of the trial court’s overall conclusion that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found no patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or other exceptional basis for revisional intervention.

The Court dismissed the criminal revision.