Supreme Court revisional power and eyewitness credibility in riot cases justify interference despite acquittal-based limits.

Section 401(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code limits the High Court's revisional power to convert acquittal into conviction, but that restriction does not curtail the Supreme Court's power under Article 136. The text states that minor inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements in eyewitness accounts in a large riot case do not justify wholesale rejection of otherwise consistent testimony, and credible ocular evidence may prevail over medical opinion. It also notes that failure to consider material evidence on unlawful assembly, arson, assault and deaths can render a lower court view unreasonable or perverse, justifying interference and remand for fresh consideration on revision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Supreme Court could interfere under Article 136 despite the revisional limitation in Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether the High Court erred in affirming acquittal without properly appreciating eyewitness evidence and material contradictions; (iii) whether remand was warranted because material evidence on unlawful assembly, house-burning and other offences was overlooked.

Issue (i): Whether the Supreme Court could interfere under Article 136 despite the revisional limitation in Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The revisional restriction on converting an acquittal into a conviction binds the High Court in revision, but it does not curtail the Supreme Court's plenary power under Article 136. Where the High Court's view is unreasonable or unsupported by a proper appraisal of the record, the Supreme Court may examine the entire material to do complete justice.

Conclusion: The limitation in Section 401(3) did not bar interference under Article 136.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court erred in affirming acquittal without properly appreciating eyewitness evidence and material contradictions.

Analysis: Minor discrepancies, embellishments and improvements in a large riot case involving many assailants and victims do not by themselves discredit the prosecution version. The evidence of several eye-witnesses and injured witnesses was broadly consistent on the core , and the Court emphasised that witnesses are not expected to depose in a parrot-like manner. The doctrine that falsehood in one part destroys the whole testimony was rejected, and ocular testimony was treated as prevailing over medical opinion where the eyewitness account is otherwise credible.

Conclusion: The eyewitness evidence could not have been discarded wholesale merely for minor inconsistencies.

Issue (iii): Whether remand was warranted because material evidence on unlawful assembly, house-burning and other offences was overlooked.

Analysis: The record disclosed substantial evidence on the assembly of a large mob, burning of houses, assault on victims and resultant deaths and injuries. The High Court had not examined these vital aspects, nor had it tested whether the trial court's approach suffered from perversity, manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice. Such non-consideration of material evidence justified interference and reconsideration on merits.

Conclusion: Remand to the High Court for fresh consideration was justified.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal-based revisional order was set aside and the matter was sent back for decision afresh on the revision petition, with no expression of opinion on the merits of guilt or innocence.

Ratio Decidendi: In a criminal revision against acquittal, material evidence cannot be ignored and minor embellishments in eyewitness accounts do not justify wholesale rejection; where such omissions render the lower court's view unreasonable or perverse, interference and remand are permissible, and Section 401(3) does not limit the Supreme Court's power under Article 136.

---