1987 JTR(SC) 153
1987 1 AICLR 556 ; 1987 2 AICLR 40 ; 1987 AIR(SC) 724 ; 1987 BBCJ(SC) 75 ; 1987 CriLR 287 ; 1987 CriLR(Cal) 200 ; 1987 1 Crimes(SC) 472 ; 1987 CrLJ 698 ; 1987 2 CurLJ 45 ; 1987 EastCrC(SC) 332 ; 1987 2 GLH 290 ; 1987 1 JT 388 ; 1987 PLJR(SC) 18 ; 1987 2 RCR(Cri) 645 ; 1987 1 Scale 284 ; 1987 2 SCC 222 ; 1987 SCC(Cri) 347 ; 1987 2 SCR 220 ; 1987 KHC 924
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.L. Oza and M.M. Dutt, JJ.
Jawahar Lal Singh - Petitioner
versus
Naresh Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 1986
Decided on 10-2.1987
IMPORTANT POINT
Dismissal of petition for leave to appeal against acquittal without a reasoned order by the High Court is not proper of the Supreme Court cannot examine the propriety of such dismissal when approached under Article 136 of Constitution.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.378(1), S.378(3)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.396
(A) The appeal pertains to a dismissal in limine of a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal filed under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State in the High Court. The accused were tried and acquitted by the trial court in a dacoity case involving murder under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, and the High Court declined to examine the merits, merely refusing leave to appeal. This Court notes that where the trial courts reasoning is not plainly unsustainable, the High Court ought to consider the matter and pass reasoned orders, and the denial of leave in limine without assessing the trial courts conclusions warrants interference under section 378(1)(3) CrPC.
(B) The key legal principles are that an order disposing of a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal must be reasoned, appellate courts must examine whether the trial courts findings were perverse or without material support, and an appellate court cannot lightly dismiss a states petition for leave under section 378(1)(3) CrPC without considering the merits.
Facts of the case:
In the night of 5-6 June, 1980, at a village in Bhagalpur district, a group of persons allegedly committed dacoity and murdered the brother of the informant, Ajab Lal Singh, inside the informants house. The injured informant lodged an FIR and was treated at a hospital. At trial, multiple eyewitnesses identified the accused under a lantern; however, the trial court discarded the evidence and acquitted all accused. The High Court dismissed the states petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal without recording reasons.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in refusing to examine the trial courts reasons for discarding the prosecution evidence and for acquitting the accused. The acquittal was not so manifestly perverse that it did not warrant a reasoned examination by the High Court before dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
Issues:
Whether a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal filed under section 378(1)(3) CrPC can be dismissed in limine without considering the merits and without recording reasons, when the trial courts findings are not plainly unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where an acquittal raises reasonable questions and the trial courts reasoning requires examination, the High Court must consider the petition for leave to appeal and pass reasoned orders; a mere refusal without examination is not permissible under section 378(1)(3) CrPC.
Result:
Appeal allowed; the impugned order is set aside; the petition for leave to appeal is restored to the High Court, which is directed to hear the parties and dispose of the matter with reasons.
(A) The appeal pertains to a dismissal in limine of a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal filed under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State in the High Court. The accused were tried and acquitted by the trial court in a dacoity case involving murder under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, and the High Court declined to examine the merits, merely refusing leave to appeal. This Court notes that where the trial courts reasoning is not plainly unsustainable, the High Court ought to consider the matter and pass reasoned orders, and the denial of leave in limine without assessing the trial courts conclusions warrants interference under section 378(1)(3) CrPC.
(B) The key legal principles are that an order disposing of a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal must be reasoned, appellate courts must examine whether the trial courts findings were perverse or without material support, and an appellate court cannot lightly dismiss a states petition for leave under section 378(1)(3) CrPC without considering the merits.
Facts of the case:
In the night of 5-6 June, 1980, at a village in Bhagalpur district, a group of persons allegedly committed dacoity and murdered the brother of the informant, Ajab Lal Singh, inside the informants house. The injured informant lodged an FIR and was treated at a hospital. At trial, multiple eyewitnesses identified the accused under a lantern; however, the trial court discarded the evidence and acquitted all accused. The High Court dismissed the states petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal without recording reasons.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in refusing to examine the trial courts reasons for discarding the prosecution evidence and for acquitting the accused. The acquittal was not so manifestly perverse that it did not warrant a reasoned examination by the High Court before dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
Issues:
Whether a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal filed under section 378(1)(3) CrPC can be dismissed in limine without considering the merits and without recording reasons, when the trial courts findings are not plainly unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where an acquittal raises reasonable questions and the trial courts reasoning requires examination, the High Court must consider the petition for leave to appeal and pass reasoned orders; a mere refusal without examination is not permissible under section 378(1)(3) CrPC.
Result:
Appeal allowed; the impugned order is set aside; the petition for leave to appeal is restored to the High Court, which is directed to hear the parties and dispose of the matter with reasons.
JUDGMENT
Oza, J.-This appeal has been filed in this Court against the dismissal in limine of a petition filed by the State of Bihar in the High Court of Judicature at Patna wherein learned Judges of the High Court rejected a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal filed by the State Government under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in limine by only saying "Prayer for leave to appeal is refused. Appeal is dismissed."
2. Before the trial Court 25 accused persons was tried on the allegation that they commit1ed dacoity and in the commission of the said dacoity murder of one Ajab Lal Singh was committed. Consequently all of them were charged for offence under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that in the night intervening between 5th and 6th day of June, 1980 at Village Nandlal Patti situated within P.S. Amarpur in the District of Bhagalpur, occurrence took place in the house of one Jawahar Lal Singh P.W. 2 who lodged the First Information Report, his house is situated in Nandlal Patti and in the course of dacoity his brother Ajab Lal Singh was killed. The incident is said to have taken place at 12 Oclock than at midnight, and the information was lodged on 6th of June, 1980 at 8.45 A.M., at Bhagalpur Medical College Hospital as the informant was lying injured in the surgical ward of the Hospital. At the trial there were number of eye-witnesses examined who claimed to have identified the accused persons in the light of a lantern burning at that time. The evidence also attributed different parts to different accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence discarded the evidence and acquitted all the accused persons from the charge leveled against them and unfortunately the Honble High Court without examining the reasons on the basis of which the learned Sessions Judge discarded evidence dismissed the leave petition and appeal as mentioned above and therefore we are at a disadvantage as we have not before us the examination of the reasons by the High Court on the basis of which the learned trial Court discarded the testimony and acquitted all the accused persons. Although learned counsel for the respondent referred to portions of the evidence to justify the order of acquittal but also contended that in case this Court feels that the High Court should have considered the matter and pass a reasoned order it would be proper that we may not refer to any part of the evidence on merits nor express, any opinion.
3. Learned counsel for both the sides did not dispute that the incident was such wherein number of persons were involved. They also frankly accepted that there are number witnesses examined in the case. A perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court also shows that all the reasons on the basis of which the whole of the prosecution evidence has been discarded is not so simple or reasons so good that they do not require examination. Under these circumstances therefore without going into the merits we feel that it would be better that the matter be examined by the learned Judges of the High Court so that we may have the advantage of considering the considered opinion of the High Court on the reasons which weighed with the learned trial Court in discarding the prosecution evidence and acquitting the respondents.
4. In view of the facts of the case and the circumstances indicated above we feel that it would be better if the High Court considers the matter and dispose it of after giving reasons and in view of this we think it proper not to express any opinion on any of the matters that may deserve consideration. The appeal is therefore allowed. The order passed by the High Court on 14th July, 1983 is set aside and the appeal along with petition for leave filed by the State of Bihar is restored to the file of High Court and it is directed that Honble the High Court after hearing the parties shall dispose of the matter giving reasons for the conclusions in accordance with law.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation : 1987 Crl. L.J. 698 = AIR 1987 SC 724 = (1987) 2 SCC 222 = 1987 SCC (Crl.) 347