HC Can’t Re-Appreciate Evidence in Revision - ‘Correct errors — don’t re-assess evidence: SC Restores Acquittal

“It would be a futile exercise to refer the matter back… the acquittal is upheld.” - On 12 August 2025, the Supreme Court drew a firm line around the High Court’s revisional powers, reinstating an acquittal in a dowry-cruelty/abetment-of-suicide prosecution after finding the deceased’s own statement pointed to an accidental kitchen fire—not a homicidal plot. Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan set aside the Madurai Bench’s 2018 order that had undone a trial court acquittal and remanded the case to consider a dying declaration afresh. The Court held that re-appreciation of evidence is not the remit of revision and, on the record, a remand would serve no purpose: “The impugned order is accordingly set aside, and the acquittal of the appellants is upheld.”

“Revisional jurisdiction is to correct glaring errors—not relitigate facts”

The appellants were tried for offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC (the second appellant also under Section 109 read with Section 306). The trial court acquitted them, having considered both sides’ evidence. On the complainant’s revision, the High Court set aside the acquittal and sent the matter back, premised on the view that the dying declaration had not been properly marked and considered. The Supreme Court reminded that, in revision, the High Court cannot undertake a wholesale re-assessment of evidence; it may only step in for glaring errors in an acquittal. Counsel for the appellants had squarely urged that re-appreciation was impermissible, and that even on its face the dying declaration did not implicate the accused.

The dying declaration exculpates: “Gas regulator was not properly closed”

The declaration—recorded by a doctor—stated that while the family slept, the gas regulator had not been properly closed; when the stove was lit in the morning, the fire spread, injuring the deceased, her husband, and children. The Supreme Court read it “in its totality” and found no accusation against the husband. “From the aforesaid dying declaration, nothing could be inferred to suggest that the deceased raised any accusation against her husband.”

Corroborative material backed accident; hearsay could not displace it

The Court noted that the complainant-father’s statement—that his daughter later told him her husband would kill her and marry the co-accused—could not outweigh the deceased’s own contemporaneous declaration and the scientific scene report. The FSL note recorded that the cylinder and stove were inside the bedroom and, as a result of the fire, the entire family suffered injuries; the deceased, being closest, sustained the most. The Bench called the father’s account “of no value” against this material.

No point in sending it back: acquittal restored

Emphasising that the trial judge had already weighed the prosecution’s case and defence, the Supreme Court held that a fresh round would be pointless: “It would be a futile exercise to refer the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.” The remand order was therefore set aside, and the acquittal stood confirmed.

Why this matters: The ruling is a crisp reminder that High Courts cannot use revision to retry acquitted accused under the guise of “omissions” in evidence appreciation. It also underscores the centrality of the deceased’s own words in cases hinging on dying declarations—especially when scientific evidence points to accident rather than animus.

Date of Decision: August 12, 2025