A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Mahabir & Ors. v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal Nos. 5560–5561 of 2024; judgment 29 Jan 2025) examined whether a High Court, sitting in revision under ss. 397/401 CrPC, could convert an acquittal into a conviction; whether the proviso to s. 372 CrPC confers an independent right on a victim to appeal; whether that proviso is an exception to s. 372 or a stand-alone substantive enactment; and whether the proviso operates retrospectively.

The Court held that s. 401(3) CrPC expressly forbids a High Court from converting acquittal into conviction and that the procedural safeguard in s. 401(5) (treating revision as appeal) can be invoked only after a reasoned judicial order recording statutory satisfaction; that the proviso to s. 372 (inserted w.e.f. 31.12.2009) creates a substantive right in favour of the victim to appeal against acquittal/ lesser conviction/ inadequate compensation and is not merely an exception to the main provision but a stand-alone provision within Chapter XXXIX; and that this statutory right is prospective it cannot be applied to orders of acquittal pronounced before the amendment.

The High Court’s reversal of acquittal in CRR-194/2006 without adopting the s. 401(5) safeguards and without affording personal/pleader hearing was therefore held to be legally impermissible. The judgment further reinforces limitations on reliance upon unproved s. 161 statements as substantive evidence and criticises perfunctory cross-examination by public prosecutors, while also commenting on public-prosecutor appointments and the State’s liability for unlawful detention.

Keywords: High Court revisional powers; Proviso to s.372 CrPC; s.401(3) & (5) CrPC; Victim’s right of appeal; Retrospective application; s.162 CrPC / s.145 Evidence Act; Unlawful detention; Public Prosecutor appointment.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeals arose from a High Court order (27.08.2024) in CRR-194/2006 reversing trial-court acquittals and convicting three accused of s. 302 IPC, following a revision filed by the deceased’s father in January 2006. The State did not appeal the trial acquittal; the revision was entertained by the High Court and, despite procedural infirmities (non-service, absence of victim’s counsel, death of the revisionist prior to final hearing), the High Court set aside acquittals and imposed life sentences. The Supreme Court earlier issued interim orders (13.12.2024) noting actus curiae neminem gravabit and directed release on bail while calling records.

The core contention before the Supreme Court was legal: whether a revisional High Court may convert acquittal into conviction, and whether the victim’s right to appeal (introduced as a proviso to s. 372 CrPC by the 2009 amendment) could be invoked retroactively to validate the High Court’s action. The Court examined legislative history, statutory text and precedents to determine that the High Court had no jurisdiction to convert acquittal into conviction without first recording satisfaction under s. 401(5) and that the victim’s statutory appeal right is substantive and prospective, effective only where the order of acquittal is passed after the amendment (31.12.2009). The Court therefore found the High Court’s exercise of revision legally unsustainable.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 13.03.1998 (Holi), an incident resulting in death was reported. Initial information was given by Dharampal (at 2:55 p.m.), but no FIR followed; an FIR was registered on 14.03.1998 based on a later statement of Om Parkash (complainant), and further statements dated 15.03.1998 implicated others. At trial (Sessions Case No.4 of 1998/2005) four accused including the present appellants were acquitted on 05.10.2005; one co-accused, Dharampal, was convicted for s. 302 and appealed. The State did not appeal the acquittals. The deceased’s father filed a criminal revision on 19.01.2006.

Procedural chronology shows service failures (process fee default), lack of representation for parties at various stages, death of the revisionist (Dec 2023) and of Dharampal (Feb 2024). The High Court appointed legal aid counsel for the revisionist and, on 27.08.2024, allowed the revision and convicted the three previously-acquitted persons, who were taken into custody forthwith. The Supreme Court later intervened. The record evidences contested witness testimony, hostile witnesses and reliance by the High Court on s. 161 police statements to re-appreciate evidence.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under s. 401/397 CrPC can convert a finding of acquittal into a conviction?
ii. Whether the proviso to s. 372 CrPC creates a substantive right for a victim to prefer an appeal against acquittal/lesser conviction/inadequate compensation?
iii. Whether the proviso to s. 372 is an exception to the main provision or a stand-alone provision within Chapter XXXIX?
iv. Whether the proviso to s. 372 operates retrospectively to validate revision filed before insertion (i.e., revision of 2006 decided after amendment)?
v. Whether the High Court improperly relied upon s. 161 police statements and the Investigating Officer to treat contradictions as substantive evidence?
vi. Whether appellants’ constitutional rights (hearing/representation) were violated by ex-parte revisional proceedings?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellants argued that the High Court breached s. 401(3) by converting acquittal into conviction; that s. 401(5) could not be invoked because at the time of filing (2006) the victim had no statutory appeal right; that the proviso to s. 372 is prospective and was introduced only w.e.f. 31.12.2009; that the High Court proceeded without proper service and without affording the accused opportunity to be heard, violating s. 401(2) and principles of natural justice as well as Articles 20/21/22(1) of the Constitution; and that the High Court impermissibly treated s. 161 statements as substantive evidence contrary to s. 162/s. 145 Evidence Act requirements.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State accepted the limits on s. 401 but contended that s. 401(5) permits treating the revision as an appeal when filed under an erroneous belief that no appeal lay and that the proviso to s. 372 could be given retrospective effect in the interest of justice as the final decision occurred after the amendment; alternatively, the High Court could and should have treated the revision as appeal and thus lawfully reversed acquittal.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Court reaffirmed statutory limits: s. 401(3) is categorical a revisional High Court cannot convert acquittal into conviction; where interference is necessary, retrial/remand is the proper remedy. s. 401(5) permits treating revision as appeal only after the High Court records satisfaction (application made under erroneous belief that no appeal lies and necessity in interest of justice). That yardstick was not applied: no reasoned, speaking order invoking s. 401(5) exists. Critically, the proviso to s. 372 (inserted by Act No.5 of 2009, effective 31.12.2009) creates a substantive right in favour of the victim to appeal against acquittal/lesser conviction/inadequate compensation and is a stand-alone provision in Chapter XXXIX not a mere exception to s. 372.

However, because that right is substantive it is prospective: the relevant date is when the order of acquittal was passed. The 2005 acquittal predates the amendment; therefore no victim’s right of appeal existed in January 2006 when the revision was filed; s. 401(5) could not have been satisfied at that point. The High Court therefore erred in law in reversing acquittal and passing conviction without proper procedural safeguards (service/hearing) and in reliance on unproved police statements under s. 161 as substantive evidence without compliance with s. 145 Evidence Act; contradictions elicited via Investigating Officer do not become substantive evidence.

The Court thus set aside the High Court’s conviction order, emphasised remedies for unlawful detention/compensation where applicable, censured inadequate prosecutorial practice, and flagged the need for merit-based appointment of Public Prosecutors.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal principle is twofold:

(1) s. 401(3) bars a revisional High Court from converting acquittal to conviction interference is confined to exceptional cases and ordinarily leads only to retrial/remand;

(2) the proviso to s. 372 CrPC is a substantive, prospective enactment creating a victim’s right to appeal (effective only where the order of acquittal is passed after amendment), and cannot be read back to sustain revisions filed before amendment. Because s. 401(5) depends on existence of an appeal right at the time of filing, it could not validate the 2006 revision.

b. OBITER DICTA

Obiter observations include robust commentary on prosecutorial duties public prosecutors must perform rigorous cross-examination of hostile witnesses beyond merely confronting them with s. 161 statements; statements to police are not substantive evidence unless duly proved and confronted under s. 145 Evidence Act. The Court also commented on public-prosecutor appointments and public office standards.

c. GUIDELINES

1. High Courts must pass reasoned orders under s. 401(5) before treating revisions as appeals.

2. Victim appeals under the proviso to s. 372 operate prospectively — appellate courts must check the date of the acquittal.

3. Revisional courts must secure personal/pleader hearing before passing adverse orders (s. 401(2)).

4. Cross-examination of hostile witnesses must be thorough; contradictions via Investigating Officer do not convert prior statements into substantive evidence unless s. 145 compliance and proof exist.

5. State governments should ensure merit-based appointment of Public Prosecutors.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Court’s analysis preserves statutory balance between revisional power and accused’s protection. It clarifies that victim-oriented amendments (proviso to s. 372) create substantive rights but cannot be retrospectively applied to validate procedural defects in pre-amendment revisions. The judgment strengthens procedural safeguards (service, hearing, reasoned orders) and curbs judicial overreach via revision. Its guidance on evidence law (limited role of s. 161 statements) and prosecutorial responsibility has practical import for trial and appellate practice. The decision is a caution to High Courts to respect the textual limits of s. 401 and to State agencies to prosecute and appeal diligently.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) & Anr., (2002) 6 SCC 650.

2. Joseph Stephen & Ors. v. Santhanasamy & Ors., (2022) 13 SCC 115.

3. Ganesha v. Sharanappa & Anr., (2014) 1 SCC 87.

4. Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors., (2012) 10 SCC 517.

5. Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 752.

6. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416.

7. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 746.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 372, 378, 397, 401, 162 (CrPC).

2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 145.