The Delhi High Court opined the scope of reappreciation of evidence by a higher court in a criminal revision. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma held that a higher court may reappreciate evidence only if the lower court's findings are found to be entirely irrational or absurd.
Brief Facts:
On June 6, 2007, Mr. Kirpal Singh and his wife were riding their scooter when they were hit by a car driven by Respondent No. 2. The car was being driven recklessly and under the influence of alcohol. Mr. Singh and his wife were seriously injured, and Mr. Singh's wife later died from her injuries. The police filed an FIR and charged Respondent No. 2 with several offences, including causing death by negligence.
However, Respondent No. 2 was acquitted at trial. Mr. Singh appealed the acquittal, but the Appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had erred in not appreciating the evidence.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was argued that the two courts had given concurrent findings and that the present revision petition was a second appeal.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court observed the scope of reappreciation of evidence by a higher court in a criminal revision. It was outlined that it had been firmly established as a legal principle that if the lower courts had already determined the facts, there was no need for the third court to re-evaluate the evidence unless it was deemed entirely irrational or absurd.
In this case, upon reviewing the records, the Bench observed that the Petitioner and his wife were brought to the hospital by an individual named Sh. Gurnam Singh, who was not examined or called as a witness. Additionally, there was no evidence regarding who reported the matter at the Police Station, which could have led to other potential eyewitnesses.
Upon reviewing the record, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court meticulously scrutinised the evidence and addressed all the raised issues. Consequently, there were no grounds to interfere with the judgments of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the Appellate Court, which upheld the acquittal of Respondent no. 2.
The decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court accordingly dismissed the revision petition.
Case Title: Shri Kripal Singh v State & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Revision Petition No 365 of 2019
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma
Advocates for Petitioner: Adv. Mr. Ambar Tewari
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP, Mr. Shishir Singh
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :