38 Years After a 1988 Murder: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal, Explains Victim’s Appeal vs Revision

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has set aside a Bombay High Court order that had remitted a 1988 murder case for fresh appreciation of evidence, and instead restored the trial court’s acquittal of the accused. It noted that a victim now has a statutory right of appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, so revision is generally not maintainable, though Section 401(5) allows a revision to be treated as an appeal. Reappraising the evidence itself, it found the prosecution case doubtful.

On 14 February 1988 the deceased was assaulted near a tailoring shop and died of his injuries. The trial court acquitted six accused. In 1990 a brother of the deceased filed a criminal revision, and the Bombay High Court set aside the acquittal without hearing the accused, whose advocate had died. The Supreme Court remitted the matter for a fresh hearing.

On remand, a Single Judge sent the case back to the Additional Sessions Judge to reconsider the eyewitness evidence, the Section 27 recoveries and the chemical analysis, while upholding the trial court’s refusal to rely on the dying declarations. The accused appealed.

The Key Question Before the Court

Was the High Court right to remit a decades-old acquittal for re-appreciation, and how should a victim’s challenge to an acquittal be brought?

Appeal, Revision and a Plausible Acquittal

The Court said the question of placing the revision before a Single Bench had become academic. Since the 2009 amendment, a victim has a statutory right of appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372, without special leave. Relying on Mallikarjun Kodagali, (2018) 10 SC CK 0035 and Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, (2022) 01 SC CK 0070, revision by a victim is not maintainable where an appeal is available, though Section 401(5) allows a revision to be treated as an appeal in the interest of justice. It noted that Section 442 BNSS reproduces Section 401.

Given that the case dated to 1988, the Court reappraised the evidence itself. It found the motive unconvincing, the eyewitnesses to be chance witnesses whose presence was not established, the dying declarations doubtful due to conflicting medical evidence, and the scene of occurrence suspect. It held that “Section 27 recovery alone cannot lead to a conviction”, and applied the principle not to overturn a plausible acquittal.

What the Court Actually Held

• The appeal was allowed and the High Court’s remand order set aside.
• The trial court’s acquittal was restored.
• Any accused in prison is to be released forthwith unless wanted in another case; bail bonds stand cancelled.
• A victim’s remedy against acquittal is an appeal under the proviso to Section 372; revision is not the route where an appeal lies.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It clarifies the victim’s remedy against acquittal under the CrPC and BNSS.
• It reaffirms the high threshold for disturbing an acquittal.
• It shows the Supreme Court may itself reappraise evidence in very old cases rather than remand.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Victims’ Counsel

• Challenge an acquittal by appeal under the proviso to Section 372, not by revision.
• If a revision is already filed, seek its conversion under Section 401(5) (Section 442 BNSS).

For Defence Counsel

• Stress that an acquittal must stand if it is a plausible view.
• Point out that recovery under Section 27 alone cannot sustain a conviction.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Because the incident dated to 1988 and the accused had faced proceedings since then, it reappraised the evidence itself.

Yes. The Court noted Section 401(5) CrPC lets the High Court treat a revision as an appeal in the interest of justice.

Human blood was found on it, but it was not linked to the accused, and recovery alone cannot lead to a conviction.

Conclusion