Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction

“A Revisional Court Cannot Convert an Acquittal into Conviction” – Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Judgment, Calls It a Blatant Miscarriage of Justice. In a scathing judgment  Supreme Court of India set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s ruling that had illegally reversed an acquittal into conviction in a criminal revision petition, calling it a clear violation of law and a shocking miscarriage of justice. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held that the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction under Section 401(3) CrPC, which expressly prohibits a revisional court from converting an acquittal into a conviction.

Declaring that the appellants had been wrongfully imprisoned for over three months due to this illegal order, the Supreme Court ordered the State of Haryana to pay ₹5,00,000 in compensation to each of them within four weeks. The Court condemned the violation of natural justice, pointing out that the accused were not even given notice or an opportunity to be heard before they were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

“The principles of criminal jurisprudence cannot be thrown to the wind. Section 401(3) CrPC categorically bars a High Court from converting an acquittal into conviction in revision. What has happened in this case is an absolute travesty of justice,” the Court remarked.

The case stemmed from a 1998 murder in Haryana, where four appellants, Mahabir & Ors., were acquitted by the trial court in 2005, while one co-accused was convicted. The State did not challenge their acquittal. However, the deceased’s father filed a criminal revision petition in 2006 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, seeking to overturn the acquittal.

Shockingly, in August 2024, the High Court, in a complete departure from law, not only overturned the acquittal but convicted the appellants of murder (Section 302 IPC) and sentenced them to life imprisonment—all without issuing any notice to them or affording them legal representation.

“This is not merely an error of law. It is a fundamental violation of justice,” the Supreme Court observed while staying the sentence in December 2024 and ordering the appellants' release on bail.

Supreme Court: High Court’s Judgment a Direct Violation of Section 401(3) CrPC

The Supreme Court minced no words in declaring the High Court’s order void, emphasizing that a revisional court has no power to convict an accused by reversing an acquittal.

“There is no ambiguity in the law. Section 401(3) CrPC explicitly states that a High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot convert an acquittal into conviction. The only remedy available to a revisional court is to order a retrial in exceptional circumstances. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in a manner that shakes the foundation of the criminal justice system,” the Court stated.

Relying on Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 650, the Supreme Court reiterated: “If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a retrial.”

The judgment also cited Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy (2022) 13 SCC 115, reaffirming that: “On a plain reading of Section 401(3) CrPC, it has to be held that the provision prohibits the High Court from converting an acquittal into conviction in revision.”

Conviction Without Notice or Legal Representation: A Blatant Violation of Fundamental Rights

The Supreme Court found that the appellants had not been served notice of the revision petition, nor were they given legal representation, violating their rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.

“It is incomprehensible that a High Court could convict and sentence a person to life imprisonment without even informing them that their acquittal was under challenge. The principles of natural justice have been completely obliterated,” the Court remarked.

Citing Santhakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) 15 SCC 440, the Court reiterated that an accused must be served notice and given an opportunity to be heard before a conviction is imposed in revision.

State’s Argument on Retrospective Application of Section 372 CrPC Rejected

The State of Haryana argued that the victim’s right to appeal against acquittal, introduced in Section 372 CrPC in 2009, should be applied retrospectively to validate the 2006 revision petition.

The Supreme Court outrightly rejected this contention, holding that: “The right to appeal is a substantive right and cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly stated by law. The proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which grants victims the right to appeal against acquittal, was introduced in 2009 and cannot be invoked for a case decided in 2006.”

The Court cited Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2019) 2 SCC 752, which held that: “The right of appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC arises only for cases where the order of acquittal was passed after 31.12.2009.”

Supreme Court Slams Reliance on Police Statements as Substantive Evidence

The Court also rebuked the High Court for relying on police statements under Section 161 CrPC as substantive evidence, a clear violation of Section 162 CrPC and Section 145 of the Evidence Act.

“A statement recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC cannot be treated as substantive evidence. It can only be used for contradiction,” the Court held, citing Anees v. State Govt. of NCT (2024 SCC OnLine SC 757).

Supreme Court Awards ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Incarceration

Noting that the appellants were in their 60s and 70s and were unjustly imprisoned for over three months, the Supreme Court awarded ₹5,00,000 in compensation to each of them, citing D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416.

“The wrongful conviction and incarceration of the appellants is a blatant violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21. The State must compensate them for their loss of liberty, dignity, and reputation,” the Court ruled.

The State of Haryana was directed to pay the compensation within four weeks, failing which further legal action would be taken.

Criticism of Public Prosecutors and Call for Reforms

The Supreme Court criticized the Public Prosecutor’s conduct, noting that he had sought the death penalty despite the clear jurisdictional defect in conviction.

“A Public Prosecutor’s duty is to assist the court in delivering justice, not to seek convictions at any cost. Political appointments of prosecutors must stop. The government must ensure that only competent and independent prosecutors are appointed,” the Court said, referring to State of Kerala v. B. Six Holiday Resorts (2010) 5 SCC 186.

This landmark judgment sends a strong message about judicial overreach, the importance of natural justice, and the responsibility of courts in protecting the rights of accused persons. The Supreme Court has not only restored faith in the rule of law but also reinforced important safeguards in criminal jurisprudence.

Date of Decision: January 29, 2025