Reaffirming the Prohibition on Reversing Acquittals in Criminal Revision: The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling in Mahabir v. State of Haryana

1. Introduction

The case of Mahabir & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2025 INSC 120) arises from a set of Criminal Appeals before the Supreme Court of India. The controversy began with a 1998 incident during the Holi festival, leading to charges of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Initially, the Sessions Court acquitted four of the defendants (including the three appellants), while convicting only one co-accused. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, invoking its revisional jurisdiction, overturned the acquittals and convicted the appellants—an action later challenged before the Supreme Court.

This Judgment addresses critical questions about the permissible scope of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the statutory bar against converting an acquittal into a conviction in revision proceedings, and the retrospective applicability of the victim’s right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (enacted in 2009). Additionally, the Supreme Court elucidates the role and responsibility of Public Prosecutors and underscores the gravity of awarding compensation for unlawful incarceration.

Parties involved include Mahabir and the other acquitted persons (as appellants) and the State of Haryana (as respondent). A private party (the father of the deceased) had originally filed a criminal revision challenging the appellants’ acquittal, but he passed away before the High Court’s final order. The principal legal issue centered on the High Court’s power (or lack thereof) to reverse an acquittal in a revision and whether such an order of conviction was sustainable in law.

2. Summary of the Judgment

In a detailed ruling, the Supreme Court:

• Declared the High Court’s action of converting the acquittal to a conviction in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction to be unlawful. Relying on Section 401(3) CrPC, the Court emphasized the explicit statutory prohibition against reversing an acquittal in a criminal revision proceeding.
• Held that the High Court should have, at most, ordered a re-trial in especially rare circumstances or dismissed the revision outright—never directly converting an acquittal into a conviction.
• Reaffirmed the principle that the victim’s right to file an appeal against acquittals (as per the proviso to Section 372 CrPC) does not apply retrospectively to judgments pronounced prior to the 2009 amendment unless the court finds it appropriate, with reasons, under Section 401(5) CrPC to treat the revision as an appeal. Moreover, in 2006 (when the acquittal was first challenged), no such right of appeal existed for victims.
• Granted compensation of INR 5,00,000/- each to the three appellants because they were wrongfully incarcerated for more than three months after their acquittal was reversed by the High Court.
• Censured the procedural lapses and the conduct of the appointed Public Prosecutor. The Supreme Court stressed that appointments of Public Prosecutors should be made strictly on merit, highlighting the duty of prosecutors to assist the court impartially.

3. Analysis

a) Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court extensively discussed and relied upon its previous authoritative pronouncements:

• Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 650
  The Court reiterated that in revision against an acquittal, there is a limit on the powers of the High Court. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 CrPC prohibits converting an acquittal directly into a conviction.
• Joseph Stephen & Ors. v. Santhanasamy & Ors. (2022) 13 SCC 115
  Confirmed that Section 401(3) CrPC bars conversion of acquittals into convictions, and courts should instead order a re-trial if and only if serious procedural errors or manifest injustice have occurred.
• Ganesha v. Sharanappa (2014) 1 SCC 87
  Explained that only in “exceptional” circumstances, where there is manifest error of law, a High Court might set aside an acquittal. Even then, direct conviction in a revision is impermissible; a re-trial is the correct course of action.
• Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2019) 2 SCC 752
  Discussed the victim’s right of appeal introduced by the 2009 amendment in Section 372 CrPC, emphasizing that the proviso empowers victims to appeal but primarily applies to orders passed after 31 December 2009.
• Anees v. State Government of NCT (2024 SCC OnLine SC 757)
  Called attention to the correct usage and limitations of statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, reiterating that such statements are not substantive evidence and must be handled in strict compliance with Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.

b) Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning rests on multiple pillars:

1. Lack of Authority under Section 401(3) CrPC. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 states that “Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.” This direct statutory bar was violated by the High Court, rendering its order unsustainable.
2. Violation of Section 401(2) CrPC (Right to Hearing). The High Court allegedly proceeded to hear the revision ex parte, without giving a meaningful opportunity of being heard to the acquitted persons. The Court found that process fees for summons were never paid, notices were not served, and counsel was appointed on the very day of arguments, with no real preparation.
3. Applicability of Section 401(5) CrPC and the Proviso to Section 372 CrPC. A victim’s right to appeal under Section 372’s proviso came into effect in 2009. Since the acquittal challenged was passed in 2005 and revision filed in 2006, no such appellate recourse existed at the time. Moreover, the High Court made no reasoned judicial order converting the revision into an appeal.
4. Importance of Substantive vs. Procedural Rights. The Court underscored that the right of appeal is a statutory right and is not automatically retroactive. Consequently, in 2006, the father of the deceased had no statutory right of appeal.
5. Restrictions on Using Section 161 CrPC Statements as Evidence. The Judgment criticized the High Court for relying on the police statement of a hostile witness as substantive evidence. The Supreme Court reiterated that any statement made to the police under Section 161 CrPC can be used only for contradiction (following Section 145 of the Evidence Act) and does not become independent evidence of guilt.

c) Impact

The Judgment has significant ramifications for criminal law and procedure in India:

• Clarity on Revisional Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the position that the High Courts cannot, under the guise of revision, directly set aside an acquittal and replace it with a conviction. Trial courts and potential revisionists must be mindful of this bright-line rule.
• Role of Public Prosecutors: The Court criticized the manner in which the Public Prosecutor sought to upgrade the punishment to capital punishment without proper legal foundation. The ruling strongly implores state governments to appoint Public Prosecutors on merit alone.
• Compensation for Unlawful Detention: Awarding INR 5,00,000/- compensation each to the three appellants is a significant precedent, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty, the harm from wrongful incarceration, and the potential for a public law remedy under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.
• Restrictions on Retrospective Appeals by Victims: The Court clarified that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (granting victim appeals) does not apply retroactively to acquittals delivered before 2009, unless the High Court properly exercises its power under Section 401(5) CrPC and passes a judicial order converting the revision into an appeal.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

a) Revisional Jurisdiction vs. Appellate Jurisdiction

A revision under Sections 397–401 of the CrPC primarily exists to correct jurisdictional errors, legality, or procedural irregularities. It is not meant to be an alternative to a full-fledged appeal. Section 401(3) explicitly states that the High Court cannot turn an acquittal into a conviction in revision.

In contrast, an appeal allows for a broader review of facts and law. Before 2009, the authority to appeal an acquittal lay largely with the State. A private complainant or victim needed special leave. After 2009, victims gained a direct right to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372, but without retrospective effect.

b) Use of Statements Recorded Under Section 161 CrPC

Statements given by witnesses to the police during investigation (under Section 161 CrPC) are not substantive evidence. They can only be used for contradiction—meaning if a witness says one thing before the police and another thing in court, the prior statement can be shown to the witness to highlight inconsistencies. But the police statement itself cannot be treated as direct evidence of guilt. This principle safeguards against convictions based solely on unverified or improperly tested proclamations.

c) Constitutional Right to Legal Representation

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India enshrines the right of every arrested person to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. Even an accused not under arrest has a fundamental right to reasonable legal assistance and to be heard when facing adverse orders.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mahabir v. State of Haryana is a vital reaffirmation of the statutory remit of revisional jurisdiction and the expansive yet carefully delineated role of the appellate mechanism in criminal justice. By disapproving the High Court’s move to reverse an acquittal into a conviction under Section 401 CrPC, the Court has protected seminal safeguards guaranteed to the accused and clarified that the victim’s right to appeal (under the 2009 proviso to Section 372) does not operate retrospectively.

Moreover, the Judgment epitomizes the importance of the Public Prosecutor’s role as a fair and unbiased officer of the court and underscores the need for such appointments to be made strictly on merit. The Court’s directive for payment of substantial compensation to those who suffered unwarranted imprisonment is a powerful affirmation that personal liberty ranks paramount in the Indian constitutional scheme. In doing so, this ruling safeguards against grave miscarriages of justice and sends a strong message about fairness and due process in criminal jurisprudence.