# Sunil Kumar Tripathi @ Guddu Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors. 24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 23
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 603 of 2009
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-kumar-tripathi-guddu-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-24-indian-law-reports-49551
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 397 & 401 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860, - Sections 34 & 307 - Arms
Act, 1959 - Section - 25 & 25(1B) - Criminal
Revision - challenging the order of acquittal -
FIR - two related trials under Sections 307/34
IPC and Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act - The
revisionist contended that, the trial court
committed a grave error in appreciating the
evidence, disregarding the superior evidentiary
value of an injured witness, and dismissing the
case based on minor contradictions - However,
the Government Advocate opposed interference,
asserting that the trial court had thoroughly
evaluated the facts and circumstances before
rendering its decision - Revisionary jurisdiction -
court contemplates that, revisional jurisdiction
u/section 401 Cr.P.C. operates within narrow limits
and can be exercise only in exceptional cases
where
interests
of
public
justice
require
interference for the correction of gross miscarriage
of justice - it cannot be exercise because the lower
court has taken a wrong view of the law or misappreciated evidence on record - held, considering
entire evidence, in cannot be said that the
impugned judgment and order suffers from any
such illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction -
consequently, the revision was dismissed for lack
of merit. (Para - 8, 9)

Revision Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Sunil Kumar Tripathi @ Guddu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
23
of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Atrauli,
District-Hardoi is hereby set aside and
reversed.

16. Let the appellant, Sunil Kumar
Yadav be released on bail in the Case
Crime No.464 of 2019 under Sections 302,
201 and 363 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of
SC/ST Act, Police Station-Atrauli, DistrictHardoi with the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant shall furnish a
personal bond with two sureties each of like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

(ii) The appellant shall appear and
strictly comply following terms of bond executed
under section 437 sub section 3 of Chapter- 33 of
Cr.P.C.:-

(a) The appellant shall attend in
accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed under this Chapter.

(b) The appellant shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of which he is
accused, or suspected, of the commission of
which he is suspected, and

(c) The appellant shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The appellant shall cooperate
with investigation /trial.

(iv) The appellant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence
when the witnesses are present in court. In case
of default of this condition, it shall be open for
the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail
and pass orders in accordance with law.

(v) The appellant shall remain present
before the trial court on each date fixed, either
personally or through his counsel. In case of his
absence, the trial court may proceed against him
under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the
liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his
presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C.
is issued and the appellant fails to appear before
the court on the date fixed in such proclamation,
then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings
against him, in accordance with law, under
Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vii) The appellant shall remain
present, before the trial court on the dates fixed
for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge
and (iii) recording of statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court
absence of the appellant is deliberate or without
sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of
bail and proceed against him in accordance with
law.

17. It is clarified that the observations, if
any, made in this order are strictly confined to the
disposal of the prayer for bail and must not be
construed to have any reflection on the ultimate
merit of the case.

18. The trial court is also directed to
expedite the trial of the aforesaid case by
following the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.,
strictly without granting any unnecessary
adjournments to the parties, in case there is no
other legal impediment.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 23
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Revision No. 603 of 2009

Sunil Kumar Tripathi @ Guddu
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Revisionist:
R.K. Verma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 397 & 401 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860, - Sections 34 & 307 - Arms
Act, 1959 - Section - 25 & 25(1B) - Criminal
Revision - challenging the order of acquittal -
FIR - two related trials under Sections 307/34
IPC and Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act - The
revisionist contended that, the trial court
committed a grave error in appreciating the
evidence, disregarding the superior evidentiary
value of an injured witness, and dismissing the
case based on minor contradictions - However,
the Government Advocate opposed interference,
asserting that the trial court had thoroughly
evaluated the facts and circumstances before
rendering its decision - Revisionary jurisdiction -
court contemplates that, revisional jurisdiction
u/section 401 Cr.P.C. operates within narrow limits
and can be exercise only in exceptional cases
where
interests
of
public
justice
require
interference for the correction of gross miscarriage
of justice - it cannot be exercise because the lower
court has taken a wrong view of the law or misappreciated evidence on record - held, considering
entire evidence, in cannot be said that the
impugned judgment and order suffers from any
such illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction -
consequently, the revision was dismissed for lack
of merit. (Para - 8, 9)

Revision Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vimal Singh Vs Khuman Singh & anr.- AIR
1998 SC 3380,

2. Venkatesan Vs Rani & anr. - Criminal Appeal
No. 462/2008 - Decided on 19.08.2013.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. List has been revised and the case
is being taken up in the revised call of the
list.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

3. The instant Criminal Revision
under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been
filed by the revisionist against the judgment
and order dated 26.08.2009 passed by
learned Sessions Court, Sitapur in Sessions
Trial No.161 of 2003, Crime No.137 of
2001, under Sections 307/34 I.P.C., Police
Station Imliya Sultanpur, District Sitapur
and Sessions Trial No.208 of 2004, Case
Crime No.139 of 2001, under Section
25(1B) of Arms Act, Police Station Imliya
Sultanpur, District Sitapur, acquitting the
accused respondent nos.2 to 4.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the trial court has committed
patent error in appreciating the evidence
available on record and has acquitted the
respondents while it was proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the respondents are
guilty of committing the heinous offence. It
is further submitted that the trial court has
given much importance to the minor
contradictions emerging in the testimony of
the
prosecution
witnesses
and
has
completely disregarded that the evidence of
an injured person is at a higher pedestal
than evidence of other witnesses but the
trial court in complete disregard to the
settled law with regard to the appreciation
of the testimony of the victim has acquitted
the accused persons on the basis of minor
contradictions which have emerged in the
evidence of injured.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. stated
that the court below passed the impugned
order after considering the facts and
circumstances
of
the
case
and
the
statements of the revisionist, in such
circumstances to meet the ends of justice,
the impugned order does not require any
12 All. Sunil Kumar Tripathi @ Guddu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
25
interference.
There
is
no
illegality,
impropriety and incorrectness in the
impugned order and also there seems to be
no abuse of court's process.

6. At the outset, it may be mentioned
that it is a Revision against order of
acquittal and thus, extent and ambit
revisional jurisdiction of this Court is quite
limited. In Venkatesan Vs. Rani & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2008)
decided on 19.08.2013, Hon'ble Apex
Court has considered the true contours of
the jurisdiction vested in the High Court's
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 while
examining order of acquittal passed by trial
court and held as under:

''6. To answer the questions that
have arisen in the present case, as noticed
at the very outset, the extent and ambit of
the revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court, particularly in the context of
exercise thereof in respect of a judgment of
acquittal, may be briefly noticed. The law
in this regard is well settled by a catena of
decisions of this Court. Illustratively, as
also
chronologically,
the
decisions
rendered
in
Pakalapati
Narayana
Gajapathi
Raju
vs.
Bonapalli
Peda
Appadu[1], Akalu Ahirv. Ramdeo Ram[2],
Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh[3],
K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P.[4]
and Logendranath Jha v. Polai Lal
Biswas[5] maybe referred to. Specifically
and for the purpose of a detailed
illumination on the subject the contents of
paras 8 and 10 of the judgmentin the case
of Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram (supra) may
be usefully extracted below.

"8. This Court, however, by way
of illustration, indicated the following
categories of cases which would justify the
High Court in interfering with a finding of
acquittal in revision:

i. Where the trial court has no
jurisdiction to try the case, but has still
acquitted the accused;

ii. Where the trial court has
wrongly shut out evidence which the
prosecution wished to produce;

iii. Where the appellate court has
wrongly held the evidence which was
admitted
by
the
trial
court
to
be
inadmissible;

iv. Where the material evidence
has been overlooked only (either) by the
trial court or by the appellate court; and

v. Where the acquittal is based on
the compounding of the offence which is
invalid under the law.

These categories were, however,
merely illustrative and it was clarified that
other cases of similar nature can also be
properly held to be of exceptional nature
where the High Court can justifiably
interfere with the order of acquittal."10. No
doubt, the appraisal of evidence by the trial
Judge in the case in hand is not perfect or
free from flaw and a Court of appeal may
well have felt justified in disagreeing with
its conclusion, but from this it does not
follow that on revision by a private
complainant, the High Court is entitled to
re-appraise the evidence for itself as if it is
acting as a Court of appeal and then order
a re-trial. It is unfortunate that a serious
offence inspired by rivalry and jealousy in
the matter of election to the office of village
Mukhia, should go unpunished. But that
can scarcely be a valid ground for ignoring
or for not strictly following the law as
enunciated
by
this
Court."
The
observations in para 9 in the case of Vimal
Singh v. Khuman Singh[6] would also be
apt for recapitulation and, therefore, are
being extracted below.
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"9. Coming to the ambit of power
of the High Court under Section 401 of the
Code, the High Court in its revisional
power does not ordinarily interfere with
judgments of acquittal passed by the trial
court unless there has been manifest error
of law or procedure. The interference with
the order of acquittal passed by the trial
court is limited only to exceptional cases
when it is found that the order under
revision suffers from glaring illegality or
has caused miscarriage of justice or when
it is found that the trial court has no
jurisdiction to try the case or where the
trial court has illegally shut out the
evidence which otherwise ought to have
been considered or where the material
evidence which clinches the issue has been
overlooked. These are the instances where
the High Court would be justified in
interfering with the order of acquittal. Subsection (3) of Section 401 mandates that the
High Court shall not convert a finding of
acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, the
High Court would not be justified in
substituting an order of acquittal into one
of conviction even if it is convinced that the
accused deserves conviction. No doubt, the
High Court in exercise of its revisional
power can set aside an order of acquittal if
it comes within the ambit of exceptional
cases enumerated above, but it cannot
convert an order of acquittal into an order
of conviction. The only course left to the
High Court in such exceptional cases is to
order retrial."

7. The above consideration would go
to show that the revisional jurisdiction of
the High Courts while examining an order
of acquittal is extremely narrow and ought
to be exercised only in cases where the
Trial Court had committed a manifest error
of law or procedure or had overlooked and
ignored relevant and material evidence
thereby causing miscarriage of justice. Reappreciation of evidence is an exercise that
the High Court must refrain from while
examining an order of acquittal in the
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under
the Code. Needless to say, if within the
limited parameters, interference of the High
Court is justified the only course of action
that can be adopted is to order a re-trial
after setting aside the acquittal. As the
language of Section 401 of the Code makes
it amply clear there is no power vested in
the High Court to convert a finding of
acquittal into one of conviction.''

7. Similarly, in case of Vimal Singh
Vs. Khuman Singh and Anr., AIR 1998
SC 3380 while examining ambit of power
of the High Court under Section 401
Cr.P.C. Hon'ble Apex Court has made
following observations:

"The legal position as to the
powers of the High Court in revision in the
matter of interference with the order of
acquittal is no longer res inlegra, as the
law in this regard is very well settled.
Suffice it to refer in this regard a decision
of this Court in K.Chinnaswamy Reddy vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh and anr. (AIR)
1962 Sc 1788) wherein it was held, thus :

"It is true that it is open to a High
Court in revision to set aside an order of
acquittal even at the instance of private
parties, though the State may not have
thought fit to appeal by the jurisdiction
should be exercised by the High Court only
in exception the procedure or there is a
manifest error on a point of law and
consequently there has been a flagrant
miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4)
ofSection 439 forbids a High Court from
converting a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction and that makes it all the more
incumbent on the High Court to see that it
12 All. Sunil Kumar Tripathi @ Guddu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
27
does not covert the finding of acquittal into
one of conviction by the indirect method of
ordering retrial, when it cannot itself
directly convert a finding of acquittal into a
finding
of
conviction.
This
places
limitations on the power of the High Court
to set aside the finding of acquittal in
revision and it is only in exceptional cases
that this power should be exercised.....

Where the appeal Court wrongly
ruled out evidence which was admissible,
the High Court would not be justified in
interfering with the order of acquittal in
revision, so that the evidence may be
reappraised - after taking into account the
evidence which was wrongly ruled out as
inadmissible. But the High Court should
confine itself only to the admissibility of the
evidence and should not go further and
appraise the evidence also".

''7. Coming to the ambit of power
of High Court under Section 401 of the
Code, the High Court in its revisional
power does not ordinarily interfere with
judgments of acquittal passed by the trial
court unless there has been manifest error
of law or procedure. The interference with
the order of acquittal passed by the trial
court is limited only to exceptional cases
when it is found that the order under
revision suffers from glaring illegality or
has caused miscarriage of justice or when
it is found that the trial court has no
jurisdiction to try the case or where the
trial court has illegally shut out the
evidence which otherwise ought to have
been considered or where the material
evidence which clinches the issue has been
overlooked. These are the instances where
the High Court would be justified in
interfering with the order of acquittal. Sub-
section (3) of Section 401 mandates that the
High Court shall not convert a finding of
acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, the
High Court would not be justified in
substituting an order of acquittal into one
of conviction even if it is convinced that the
accused deserves conviction. No doubt, the
High Court in exercise of its revisional
power can set aside an order of acquittal if
it comes within the ambit of exceptional
cases enumerated above, but it cannot
convert an order of acquittal into an order
of conviction. The only course left to the
High Court in such exceptional cases is to
order retrial. In fact, Sub- section (3) of
Section 401 of the Code forbids the High
Court in converting the order of acquittal
into one of conviction. In view of the
limitation on the revisional power of the
High Court, the High Court in the present
case committed manifest illegality in
convicting the appellant under Section 304,
Part - I and sentencing him to seven years'
rigorous imprisonment after setting aside
the order of acquittal."

8. The revision jurisdiction of the
High Court as contemplated under Section
401 of Cr.P.C. operates within narrow
limits and can be exercised only in
exceptional cases where interests of public
justice
require
interference
for
the
correction of gross miscarriage of justice. It
cannot be exercised because the lower
court has taken a wrong view of the law or
mis-appreciated evidence on record. The
revision power of the High Court is to be
exercised when there is manifest error of
law or glaring defect in the procedure.

9. In the instant case, considering
entire evidence, it cannot be said that the
impugned judgment and order suffers from
any such illegality, perversity or error of
jurisdiction
so
as
to
warrant
any
interference by this Court and even the
counsel for the revisionist has also not been
able to point out any such illegality or
impropriety
or
incorrectness
in
the
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned order which may persuade this
Court to interfere in the same. In such
circumstances to meet the ends of justice,
the impugned order does not require any
interference.
There
is
no
illegality,
impropriety and incorrectness in the
impugned order and also there seems to be
no abuse of court's process.

10. In view of the above, this revision
lacks merit and stands dismissed.

11. No order as to costs.

12. Copy of this judgment be sent to
the court below for its compliance.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 28
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 850 of 2022

Smt. Priyanka Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Rajeev Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Indra Pratap Singh, Utkarsh Kumar

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 125 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506,
406 & 452 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 7 - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article
15(3)
-
Criminal
Revision
-
challenging the dismissal order of Petition u/s
125 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court - marriage was
solemnized in 2014 - but she was sent off to
her matrimonial place subjected to dowry
demands, domestic violence, and eventual
abandonment - determination of issues farmed
by the family court - The trial court rejected
her plea, citing insufficient proof of marriage,
including the
lack
of evidence
for the
mandatory Hindu ritual of "Saptapadi" -
Revision - Court finds that, proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and
require a lower standard of proof for marriage
than regular matrimonial disputes - held that,
strict technicalities should not defeat the
objective of maintenance laws aimed at
preventing destitution - as well as Section 125
Cr.P.C. is a social legislation to make provision
for maintenance of wife, child and old parents
to avoid vagrancy and provide sustenance to
these
vulnerable
sections
-
hence,
the
impugned order is set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the family court for
reconsideration, allowing the summoning of
additional witnesses and evidence to establish
the petitioner's claims - revision stands
allowed. (Para - 20, 24, 25)

Revision Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kamala Vs M.R. Mohan Kumar 2018 SCC
Online SC 2121 decided on 24.10.2018,

2. Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs Bidyut Prava
Dixit & anr.1999(7) SCC 675,

3. Irshad Ali Vs St. of U.P. & anr.- Criminal
Appeal No.1555 of 2020,

4. Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi Vs Pyla Suri
Demudu & anr. 2011(12) SCC 189,

5. Sumitra Devi Vs Bhikan Choudhary 1985 (1)
SCC 637,

6. Lakshmi Devi Vs Satyanarayan & ors. -
Criminal Appeal No.314 of 1981,

7. Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande & anr. Vs St. Of
Maharashtra & anr.AIR (2001) SC 1108.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)