Badri Lal Vs. Chandan Singh and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2003
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.1.2002 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 1213 of 2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.1.2002 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 1213 of 2001)
Petitioner: Badri Lal
Respondent: Chandan Singh and Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2003
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.1.2002 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 1213 of 2001)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.1.2002 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 1213 of 2001)
Judges: B.P. SINGH & B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 03, 2005
Appearances:
Mr. Alok Bachhawat, Mr. Sarad Singhania and Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. Niraj Sharma, Mr. Vikrant Singh, Advocates for the Respondents Nos. 1-4.
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.
Mr. Niraj Sharma, Mr. Vikrant Singh, Advocates for the Respondents Nos. 1-4.
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Special leave refused – Two injured eye witnesses – Both seriously injured. Held that in this case leave should not have been refused. Orders set aside and High Court directed to grant leave and to dispose appeal on merits. (Para 5)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Special leave refused – Two injured eye witnesses – Both seriously injured. Held that in this case leave should not have been refused. Orders set aside and High Court directed to grant leave and to dispose appeal on merits. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
B.P. Singh, J.
1. We have heard counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal by special leave the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench dated 9th January, 2002 in criminal appeal no. 1213/2001 has been impugned. The High Court by its aforesaid order found that having regard to the evidence on record, no case for interference was made out in the said appeal against acquittal and accordingly the court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal.
3. The State’s appeal having been dismissed by the High Court, the injured Badrilal has preferred this appeal by special leave.
4. In the occurrence that took place on the 17th march, 1997 two persons were seriously injured namely, Anita PW 6 and Badrilal PW 9.
5. The case of the prosecution is that Anita rushed to her village and reported the matter to one Kanak Singh PW 4 who later lodged a first information report. Though we have looked into the evidence on record, we do not wish to express any opinion at this stage in view of the order which we propose to make we are satisfied that this is one of those cases where the High Curt should have at least considered on merit the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State. This was not a case in which the High Court should have refused leave to appeal. This, however, should not be understood as expression of opinion on the merit of the case either way.
6. We allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 9th January, 2002 and remit the matter to the High Court to grant leave to appeal to the State to appeal against the judgment and order of the additional sessions judge, Dhar dated 30th July, 2001 in S.T.No. 191/97 and to dispose of the appeal thereafter on merit.
1. We have heard counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal by special leave the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench dated 9th January, 2002 in criminal appeal no. 1213/2001 has been impugned. The High Court by its aforesaid order found that having regard to the evidence on record, no case for interference was made out in the said appeal against acquittal and accordingly the court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal.
3. The State’s appeal having been dismissed by the High Court, the injured Badrilal has preferred this appeal by special leave.
4. In the occurrence that took place on the 17th march, 1997 two persons were seriously injured namely, Anita PW 6 and Badrilal PW 9.
5. The case of the prosecution is that Anita rushed to her village and reported the matter to one Kanak Singh PW 4 who later lodged a first information report. Though we have looked into the evidence on record, we do not wish to express any opinion at this stage in view of the order which we propose to make we are satisfied that this is one of those cases where the High Curt should have at least considered on merit the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State. This was not a case in which the High Court should have refused leave to appeal. This, however, should not be understood as expression of opinion on the merit of the case either way.
6. We allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 9th January, 2002 and remit the matter to the High Court to grant leave to appeal to the State to appeal against the judgment and order of the additional sessions judge, Dhar dated 30th July, 2001 in S.T.No. 191/97 and to dispose of the appeal thereafter on merit.
