Page 1

Reportable

                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.  2061-2062 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4149-4150/2011)

MARY PAPPA JEBAMANI ..Appellant

Versus

GANESAN & ORS. ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.

1. Leave as prayed for was granted and hence  the  

counsel for the contesting parties were finally heard.

2. The  complainant/appellant  (Mary  Pappa  

Jebamani) herein has filed  this  appeal by way of  special  

leave  bearing SLP (Crl.) No.4149/11) against the judgment

Page 2

and  order  dated  25.2.2010  passed  in  Crl.  R.C.  (MD)  

No.620/2008 of  Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court by  

which  the  learned  single  Judge  while  exercising  his  

revisional   jurisdiction  was  pleased  to  set  aside  the  

judgment  and  order  dated   26.6.2008   passed  by  the  

Principal  Sessions  Court,  Virudhunagar  District  at  

Srivilliputhur being  the first appellate court  who had  been  

pleased to set aside  the order of acquittal passed by the  

trial court against  the accused/respondents herein  for the  

offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 323 of the  

Indian  Penal  Code  (for  short  ‘IPC’).     Thereafter,  the  

appellants herein  also filed an application bearing MP (MD)  

SR No. 15619/2010 in the aforesaid  criminal revision for  

allowing the application by ordering retrial  of the accused  

respondents  which  petition  was  dismissed  as  not  

maintainable vide order dated 7.1.2011 against which the  

complainant/appellant  filed   the   analogous   petition  for  

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)  No. 4150/2011.   It is thus  

clear   that  the  complainant  has  filed  one  special  leave  

petition  against  the  order  by  which  the  acquittal  of  the  

2

Page 3

respondents/accused  persons  has  been  restored  by  the  

High  Court  by  allowing   their  criminal   revision  and  has  

dismissed the application of the  complainant/appellant by  

which   re-trial   of  the  accused  respondents  had  been  

sought.

3. In  order  to  examine  the  correctness  of  the  

impugned orders of  the High Court, it appears essential to  

relate the facts of the case giving rise to these two appeals  

which disclose  that  a criminal complaint bearing crime No.  

152/2005  was  registered  by  the  Sub  Inspector  of  Police  

wherein  it  was  stated    that  at  about  7.30  p.m.  on  

24.6.2005, the appellant/complainant  and her father  while  

walking down the street to their  residence were way laid  

by the respondents who verbally abused them and beaten  

them with  wooden logs.   Hence a case was registered for  

offences  under  Section  294(b)  and  323  IPC.    After  

investigation  and submission  of  chargesheet,  a  summary  

trial bearing case No. 1/2007 was conducted by the Chief  

Judicial  Magistrate,  Virudhunagar  District  wherein  the  

complainant/PW-1 and her father PW-4 deposed  not only  

3

Page 4

against  the  accused respondents  herein  but  also  against  

three  other  female  members   of  the  accused  party.  

However, PW-2 and PW-3 who were cited as eye-witnesses  

turned hostile and the deposition of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-9  

who is  the  daughter of PW-1 complainant  were not relied  

upon as the trial court being the Chief Judicial Magistrate,  

Virudhunagar  District  held  that  the  complaint  did  not  

disclose   the nature of  abusive language used by  the  

accused as also the fact that the  eye-witnesses had  turned  

hostile.   The  trial  court,  therefore,   vide  its  order  dated  

20.4.2007 was pleased to  give benefit  of doubt  to the  

accused persons and they were  held not guilty for offences  

under Sections  294(b) and 323 IPC.  

4. The  appellant/complainant  felt  seriously  

aggrieved of the acquittal of the accused respondents and  

hence  filed  Crl.   R.P.No.25/2008  before  the   Principal  

Sessions  Court,  Srivilliputhur,  District  Virudhunagar  

against  the  trial  court/Chief  Judicial  Magistrate’s  Order  

dated  20.4.2007  and  also   prayed  for    retrial   of  the  

accused  respondents.   The  Principal  Sessions  Court,  

4

Page 5

Virudhunagar   vide  order  dated  26.6.2008  allowed  the  

revision  filed  by  the  complainant/appellant  and set  aside  

the  order  of  acquittal  dated  20.4.2007  of  the  accused  

respondents passed by the  Chief Judicial Magistrate.

5. Obviously, it was  now the turn of  the accused  

respondents  to  move  the  High  Court  against  the  order  

setting aside their acquittal and hence they filed  criminal  

revision in the High Court which was allowed by  the High  

Court vide the impugned order.  The complainant/appellant,  

therefore,   has moved this Court by way of  this  special  

leave petition challenging the order of acquittal  and further  

filed  a  Crl.   Misc.  Petition   bearing  SR  No.  15619/2010  

praying  for retrial  of  the accused respondents which was  

dismissed  as  not  maintainable  as  already  referred  to  

hereinbefore.   The  analogous   special  leave  petition  is  

directed against this order.  6. The  

complainant/appellant  who  appeared   in  person  has  

challenged the judgment and order of the High Court  and  

submitted that the order of the High Court acquitting the  

accused respondents  is fit to be to quashed and set aside  

5

Page 6

as  the  clinching  evidence   on  record   adduced  by  the  

complainant and their witnesses were illegally ignored by  

the trial court as also the High Court specially  the medical  

evidence indicating that the appellant’s father  had taken  

treatment  as  an  in-patient   in  the  Government  Hospital  

Virudhunagar from 24.6.2005 to 1.7.2005 and had  taken  

treatment  as  in-patient  in  the  Government  Hospital,  

Madurai,  from  2.7.2005 to 16.7.2005 which was  for  23  

days   continuously  as  a  consequence  of  the  injury  

sustained in the incident which   has been totally  ignored  

by the trial court  while  recording an order of acquittal of  

the accused respondents.  The appellant-in-person  relying  

upon Section 323 of the IPC has further  urged that  any  

hurt which endangers life or which can put the  sufferer    in  

severe bodily  pain for  20 days or   render  him unable to  

follow his ordinary  daily pursuit, could not have been taken  

lightly  by  the  trial  court  so  as  to  acquit  the  accused  

respondents even for the  offence under Section 323 IPC.  

The appellant  has further relied upon  other discrepancies  

in  appreciation  of  the   evidence   of  the  

6

Page 7

prosecution/complainant  while  acquitting   the  accused  

respondents.   

7. In addition to the above, the appellant has also  

contended that the trial court  as also the High Court  failed  

to consider that fair trial  had not been conducted by the  

trial court  as all the  witnesses could not depose  freely and  

state  what exactly  had happened.   It has been contended  

that  the  accused  respondents   are   rough  and  rowdy  

persons of disrepute and this  scared  the complainant as  

also  the  witnesses  so  much  so  that  no  one   dares  to  

complain against them.  It was still further urged  that one  

Rajakani who is the wife  of the  first accused respondent  

Ganesan has illicit relation with one BT Selvam who is the  

appellant’s   divorced  husband.   The  trial  court   also  

overlooked  the  incidents   caused  by  the  accused  

respondents against whom  several cases are pending  in  

various courts.

8. The  appellant  has  further  contended  that  the  

offence committed by the accused respondents was a  pre-

planned crime and all the accused persons  shared common  

7

Page 8

intention  and common object to assault and commit other  

offences against the complainant.  The trial court, therefore,  

committed  error   in  acquitting  the  accused  respondents  

which had been set aside  by the first appellate court/the  

Court of Sessions   which in turn  set aside the acquittal of  

the respondents but the High Court wrongly interfered with  

the  same  and  set  it  aside.   The  appellant  has  further  

submitted that  the investigation conducted in  the matter  

was also  full of legal and procedural infirmities  and hence  

it was a fit case for sending the matter for retrial.

9. Learned  counsel,  representing  the  respondents’  

case, however, has supported the impugned  judgment and  

order of the High Court and the trial court and first of all  

submitted  that  the  order  seeking  retrial  of  the  accused  

respondents  is wholly unwarranted  as the plea for retrial  

cannot be ordered on a flimsy ground at the instance of the  

prosecution.   To reinforce   their submission, reliance has  

been  placed  on  the  ratio  of  the  judgment  of  this  Court  

delivered in the matter of  Satyajit Banerjee & Ors. Vs.  

State of W.B. & Ors.  ,  (2005) 1 SCC 115, wherein this  

8

Page 9

Court has held that direction for retrial should not be made  

in all  or every case where acquittal of accused  is for want  

of  adequate or reliable evidence.  It is only when an  extra-

ordinary situation in regard  to the first trial is found so as  

to treat  it    a farce  or  a ‘mock trial’,  which would justify  

directions for retrial.   It was further  held therein  that the  

trial   Judge   has  to  decide  the  case  on  the   basis  of  

available evidence recorded at the initial stage of the trial  

and  the  additional  evidence   recorded   on  retrial  in  the  

event  a retrial had been permitted.   This Court  has laid  

down the law on this  in the  Best Bakery case (2004) 4  

SCC 158, holding therein that the order for retrial  cannot  

be  applied  to  all  cases  as  that  would  be  against  the  

established  principle of  criminal  jurisprudence.    In   the  

Best Bakery Case, the first trial was found  to be a farce  

and  was  described     as  a  ‘mock  trial’.   Therefore,  the  

direction for retrial  was, in fact, for a  real trial and such an  

extra-ordinary situation  alone could justify the directions  

for retrial  of a case as  made by the  Supreme Court  in  

Best Bakery Case.   

9

Page 10

10. In yet another  case of  Ram Bihari Yadav  vs.  

State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517,  this Court  held that the  

High Court  ought not to have directed the trial court  to  

hold the de novo trial  and take a  decision on the basis of  

the so-called ‘suggested formula’.   But the   Supreme Court  

in this matter had refused  to set aside  the order of retrial  

since  retrial   as  directed  by  the  High  Court  had already  

commenced  and   further  evidence  had  already  been  

recorded in view of  which the Supreme Court declined to  

set aside  retrial and upheld the judgment of the High Court  

permitting  retrial.    Thus,  it  cannot  be  overlooked  that  

where prosecution lacks in  bringing  necessary evidence,  

the trial court ought to invoke its powers under Section 311  

of the Criminal Procedure Code and can direct for retrial.  

11. In the light of the aforesaid legal position when  

the facts of the instant matter are examined, it  emerges  

that the appellant although  has alleged that the order for  

retrial  should have  been passed by the trial court and the  

High Court, nothing  specific has been  pointed out  why the  

matter should be sent  for retrial specially when the two of  

10

Page 11

the  important   witnesses  had   failed  to  support   the  

prosecution/complainant  version.    Apart   from  this,  the  

complainant   herself   had failed  to   disclose  as  to  what  

exactly  was the genesis  of  the  occurrence as  also   the  

contents of the  abuse  which could persuade  this court  

that  a de novo  trial of the accused  was essential.    

12. Having  thus considered and analyzed the facts  

and the evidence  that were  brought to the notice of this  

Court,  we are  of  the  view that   SLP  (Crl.)  No.4150/2011  

seeking retrial   of  the complaint case bearing  Summary  

Trial case No. 1/2007 is not fit to be entertained as it is not  

possible  to take  a view   that the investigation was shoddy  

or  suffered   from grave  lacunae  which  would  justify  the  

parameters for retrial  at the instance of the complainant  

for  the  mere  asking  as  it  does  not   meet  the  legal  

requirements justifying  a retrial.  However, it so far as  SLP  

(Crl.)  No.  4149/2011 is  concerned,  it  is   clearly  reflected  

from the impugned order of the High Court  allowing the  

revision  petition   at  the  instance   of  the  accused  

respondents  that  it  has  failed  to  record  any  reason  

11

Page 12

whatsoever  while  exercising  revisional  jurisdiction  for  

setting aside the order of conviction passed by the Sessions  

Court  which had set  aside the order  of  acquittal   of  the  

respondents  without  examining  any  evidence  more  

particularly  the medical  evidence led by the complainant  

which disclosed that the complainant’s father had sustained  

injuries  and  was  treated  at  a  Government  Hospital  for  

several days.    Hence, even  though we endorse the view of  

the High Court to the effect that the instant matter   might  

not have been a fit case for referring it for retrial, the High  

Court  certainly had  the legal obligation to  assign reasons  

while  allowing  the  revision  of  the  accused  respondents  

stating  why it has set aside the judgment and order of the  

First  Appellate  Court/Sessions  Court  while  exercising  

revisional  jurisdiction  specially when the Sessions Court  

found  sufficient  evidence   on  record   to  set  aside  the  

acquittal of the respondents   and upheld their  conviction  

under Section 294 (b) and 323 IPC.

13. Since the  High Court   has  failed to  record  any  

reason setting aside the order of  the First Appellate Court,  

12

Page 13

when it was exercising merely  revisional jurisdiction,  we  

deem it just and appropriate to remand the matter arising  

out of  Criminal Revision No. 620/2008 to the High Court to  

reconsider and assign  reasons for setting aside  the order  

of  conviction  and recording  an order of acquittal  of the  

respondents passed by the First Appellate Court convicting  

the  respondents  without  specifying   and  ignoring   the  

medical evidence although it was   considering the matter  

only   in  exercise  of  its  revisional  jurisdiction   which  has  

limited  ambit and scope.  In view of the above discussion,  

the appeal arising out of  SLP (Crl.) 4149/2011  shall  be  

treated as  allowed in view of the order of remand of the  

matter  to  the  High  Court  for   fresh  consideration.   As  

already  stated,  appeal  arising   out  of  SLP  (Crl.)  No.  

4150/2011 stands dismissed.    

…………………………J         (G.S.  Singhvi)

       …………………………J

13

Page 14

(Gyan Sudha Misra)

New Delhi; December 09, 2013

14