2000 JTR(SC) 965
2000 3 AICLR 709 ; 2001 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 112 ; 2000 41 AllCriC 417 ; 2000 4 Crimes(SC) 268 ; 2000 3 EastCrC(SC) 891 ; 2000 8 JT 50 ; 2003 10 Scale 1012 ; 2001 10 SCC 607 ; 2003 SCC(Cri) 639 ; 2000 7 Supreme 692
2000(7) Supreme 692
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., D.P. Wadhwa & Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.
State of U.P. -Appellant
versus
Battan & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1995
Decided on 4-5-2000
Act Referred :CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.385, ., S.378
(A) The appeal pertains to an order of acquittal delivered by the trial court in respect of offences allegedly committed under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, read with Section 385, Section 378 and other relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court refused leave to file an appeal against the acquittal, and this Court has been called in to examine whether the High Court had a duty to record reasons for its refusal and whether the material evidence was properly appraised in accordance with the principles governing appeal against acquittal.
(B) The case underscores the principle that in appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must carefully reappraise the evidence, especially that of material witnesses, and cannot lightly dismiss the prosecution case merely because of inconsistencies or gaps in appreciation by the trial court. The absence of reasoned orders by the High Court in refusing leave to appeal and in dismissing the appeal against acquittal renders the orders unsustainable, necessitating a re-hearing on merits.
Facts of the case:
On 17th January, 1990, in the morning, the deceased went to the riverside. The accused party, armed with lathis and dandas, arrived and assaulted him. Upon learning of the assault, the brothers of the deceased, namely Ramesh, Ramphal and Ram Nath, rushed to the spot, where they found the accused chasing and assaulting the deceased. When other persons intervened, the accused fled. A first information report was lodged, and following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The trial court acquitted the accused on 4th April, 1991. Leave to appeal against acquittal was refused by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not discuss the evidence of the injured material witnesses, namely Ramesh, Ramphal and Ram Nath. The trial court failed to consider injuries reportedly sustained by some accused members and did not appreciate the entire evidence as required. The High Court, as the first court of appeal, ought to have re-appreciated the evidence and recorded reasons for refusing leave. The absence of reasons and the manner in which the appeal was disposed of render the orders non-sustainable.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was required to record reasons for refusing leave to appeal against acquittal? Whether the trial court and the High Court properly appreciated the material evidence on record, especially the testimony of the injured witnesses?
Ratio Decidendi:
Where an appeal against acquittal is concerned, the High Court is bound to apply its mind to the evidence and record reasons for refusing leave. In the absence of reasons, and where the appellate court fails to reappraise crucial evidence, the orders suffer from patent illegality and must be set aside, with the matter remanded for a fresh hearing on merits.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the High Court to hear and decide the appeal against acquittal on merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
(A) The appeal pertains to an order of acquittal delivered by the trial court in respect of offences allegedly committed under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, read with Section 385, Section 378 and other relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court refused leave to file an appeal against the acquittal, and this Court has been called in to examine whether the High Court had a duty to record reasons for its refusal and whether the material evidence was properly appraised in accordance with the principles governing appeal against acquittal.
(B) The case underscores the principle that in appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must carefully reappraise the evidence, especially that of material witnesses, and cannot lightly dismiss the prosecution case merely because of inconsistencies or gaps in appreciation by the trial court. The absence of reasoned orders by the High Court in refusing leave to appeal and in dismissing the appeal against acquittal renders the orders unsustainable, necessitating a re-hearing on merits.
Facts of the case:
On 17th January, 1990, in the morning, the deceased went to the riverside. The accused party, armed with lathis and dandas, arrived and assaulted him. Upon learning of the assault, the brothers of the deceased, namely Ramesh, Ramphal and Ram Nath, rushed to the spot, where they found the accused chasing and assaulting the deceased. When other persons intervened, the accused fled. A first information report was lodged, and following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The trial court acquitted the accused on 4th April, 1991. Leave to appeal against acquittal was refused by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not discuss the evidence of the injured material witnesses, namely Ramesh, Ramphal and Ram Nath. The trial court failed to consider injuries reportedly sustained by some accused members and did not appreciate the entire evidence as required. The High Court, as the first court of appeal, ought to have re-appreciated the evidence and recorded reasons for refusing leave. The absence of reasons and the manner in which the appeal was disposed of render the orders non-sustainable.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was required to record reasons for refusing leave to appeal against acquittal? Whether the trial court and the High Court properly appreciated the material evidence on record, especially the testimony of the injured witnesses?
Ratio Decidendi:
Where an appeal against acquittal is concerned, the High Court is bound to apply its mind to the evidence and record reasons for refusing leave. In the absence of reasons, and where the appellate court fails to reappraise crucial evidence, the orders suffer from patent illegality and must be set aside, with the matter remanded for a fresh hearing on merits.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the High Court to hear and decide the appeal against acquittal on merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
ORDER
This appeal by special leave has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against refusal by the High Court to grant leave in an appeal against acquittal and, consequently, dismissing the appeal against acquittal.
2. Shorn of details, the prosecution case in brief is that on 17th of January, 1990 at about 8.00 a.m. when the deceased went towards river side for easing himself, the accused party armed with lathis and dandas arrived there and started assaulting him. On learning about the assault on their brother, Ramesh, Ramphal and Ram Nath (PWs) rushed to the spot and found that the accused were chasing Ramesh (deceased) and as soon as Ramesh had reached outskirts of the village, he was assaulted by the accused party and he fell down. When his brothers and some other prosecution witnesses tried to intervene, they were also given beating. On hearing noise, some other persons also were attracted to the spot, seeing whom the accused persons ran away. A first information report was lodged and after investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused party.
3. After recording the evidence, the learned trial Court on 4th April, 1991 acquitted the accused persons of the charges. As already noticed, leave to file appeal against acquittal was refused by the High Court.
4. We have perused the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. We find that there is hardly any discussion of evidence of the injured witnesses Ramesh, Ramphal and Ram Nath. They are material witnesses being stamped witnesses. Even according to the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. some members of the accused party including Battan and Bhagira had also received injuries at the hands of the complainant party. The trial Court has not discussed this aspect of the case at all. The trial Court was required to carefully appraise the entire evidence and then come to a conclusion. The trial Court did not do so. It was, therefore, necessary for the High Court to have granted leave and as a first Court of Appeal, re-appreciated the entire evidence on the record and returned its findings as regards guilt or otherwise of the accused. It has failed to do so. The High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal. We have been deprived of knowing the factors which may have weighed with the High Court for refusing to grant leave against the order of acquittal. The manner in which appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be desired. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set-forth its reasons, howsoever, brief in its order. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable. It appears appropriate to us that the High Court should hear and decide the appeal against acquittal on its merits. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set-aside the judgment of the High Court. Granting leave to the State to file an appeal against acquittal, we direct the High Court to hear the appeal against acquittal and decide it on its own merits. The High Court shall do so uninfluenced by any of the observations made by us today.
5. The respondents shall appear before Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court on 7th July, 2000, who shall then release the respondents on bail, on their furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction.
Appeal allowed. Matter remanded.
**************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
State of U.P. v. Battan & Ors., 2000(7) Supreme 692
00020