1962 (7) TMI 66 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court stresses admissibility of statement & limited High Court jurisdiction on appeal orders

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the admissibility of the appellant's statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and ... - Issues Involved:1. Admissibility of the appellant's statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.2. High Court's jurisdiction to interfere with an order of acquittal in revision.3. Appropriate course of action when relevant evidence is ruled out by the appeal court.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Admissibility of the appellant's statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act:The primary issue revolves around whether the appellant's statement, 'he would show the place where he had hidden the ornaments,' is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Assistant Sessions Judge admitted this statement, while the Sessions Judge ruled it out as inadmissible. The Supreme Court analyzed the scope of Section 27, which allows for the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a fact, even if it amounts to a confession. The Court referenced the Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor case, which clarified that only the portion of the statement distinctly related to the discovery is admissible. The Court concluded that the entire statement of the appellant is admissible because it distinctly relates to the discovery of the ornaments and does not pertain to the past history of the crime.2. High Court's jurisdiction to interfere with an order of acquittal in revision:The appellant contended that the High Court should not have interfered with the acquittal order in a revision filed by a private party, as there were no exceptional circumstances warranting such interference. The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in D. Stephens v. Nosibolla and Logendranath Jha v. Shri Polailal Biswas, emphasizing that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction should only be exercised in exceptional cases involving manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that the High Court had delved deeply into the evidence, which amounted to 'loading the dice' against the appellant for the retrial. However, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal because the Sessions Judge had wrongly excluded admissible evidence, thus warranting interference.3. Appropriate course of action when relevant evidence is ruled out by the appeal court:The Supreme Court considered the appropriate remedy when an appeal court wrongly excludes relevant evidence. The Court distinguished between cases where the trial court acquits the accused and those where the appeal court acquits after a trial court conviction. In the present case, the trial court had convicted the appellant, and the appeal court acquitted him by ruling out admissible evidence. The Supreme Court determined that the proper course was to direct the appeal court to re-hear the appeal, taking into account the previously excluded evidence. The appeal court should independently assess the evidence without being influenced by the High Court's observations. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's order, directing the appeal court to re-hear the appeals of both the appellant and the other accused.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the admissibility of the appellant's statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and underscoring the limited jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with orders of acquittal in revision. The Court directed the appeal court to re-hear the appeals, ensuring a fair reassessment of the evidence.