Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked to Convert Acquittal Into Conviction Where Statutory Appeal Remedy Was Not Exercised

The case originated from a 2014 judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in a batch of appeals concerning a violent incident in 2008. While 49 accused were convicted, 28 were acquitted, including the Non-Applicant, Ilaram Sahu (Accused No. 58).

Although not named in the initial FIR or Dehati Nalishi, consistent ocular evidence from prosecution witnesses, including an injured child witness (PW-3), attributed an active role to him.

Noticing this discrepancy during the main appeals, the High Court directed the Registry to register a suo motu criminal revision to examine the legality of Sahu’s acquittal.

Notably, neither the State nor the complainant had preferred an appeal against the 28 acquittals.

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. to convert an acquittal into a conviction when no statutory appeal was filed by the State or the victim.

2. Whether the trial court’s acquittal of the Non-Applicant based on the omission of his name in the FIR and contradictions in ocular testimony constituted a manifest error or miscarriage of justice.

The court primarily applied Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, specifically sub-section (3), which prohibits converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, and sub-section (4), which bars revision proceedings at the instance of a party who could have appealed but failed to do so.

The court relied on Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025), which establishes that revisional jurisdiction is strictly supervisory and cannot substitute an appeal.

It further applied the principle from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, holding that if two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must prevail.

The Court reasoned that Section 401(4) Cr.P.C. creates a clear procedural bar: where a statutory right of appeal exists (as it did for the State and victim under Section 372 or 378 Cr.P.C.) and is not exercised, the High Court’s revisional powers are severely restricted.

The Court observed that the trial court’s decision to acquit Sahu was a "plausible view" based on material omissions in the FIR (Ex.P-18) and contradictions between the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 regarding the assault.

Since revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate, the Court found it impermissible to re-appreciate evidence or unsettle a reasoned acquittal simply because a different conclusion could be reached.

Furthermore, the court noted that all other convicts had already served their sentences, imparting a sense of finality to the overall litigation.

It held that under Section 401(3) and (4) Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction in revision, especially when the party seeking relief (or the State) failed to exhaust its statutory right of appeal.

The acquittal of Ilaram Sahu was maintained as it did not suffer from patent illegality or gross miscarriage of justice.

No order as to costs was made.