State of U.P. Vs. Battan & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1995
Petitioner: State of U.P.
Respondent: Battan & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1995
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND, CJI, D.P. WADHWA & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 05, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Sections 378, 385 – Appeal against acquittal – High Court refusing leave to appeal without assigning any reason for such refusal – Legality. Held High Court ought to have assigned reasons for refusing the leave to appeal against an acquittal. Absence of reasons vitiated the order passed by the High Court. Leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court with direction to the High Court to hear the appeal and decide it on merits.
(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal by special leave has been filed by the State of Utter 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 ac-cused 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 prose-cution witnesses tried to intervene, they were also given beat-ing. 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 char-ge-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 Ses-sions Judge. We find that there is hardly any discussion of evi-dence of the injured witnesses Ramesh, Ramphal and Ram Nath. They are material witnesses being stamped witnesses. Even ac-cording 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 com-plainant party. The trial court has not discussed this aspect of the case at all. The trial court was required to carefully ap-praise 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 ren-dered the High Court order not sustainable. It appears appro-priate 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. Grant-ing 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 unin-fluenced 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 satis-faction.
1. This appeal by special leave has been filed by the State of Utter 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 ac-cused 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 prose-cution witnesses tried to intervene, they were also given beat-ing. 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 char-ge-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 Ses-sions Judge. We find that there is hardly any discussion of evi-dence of the injured witnesses Ramesh, Ramphal and Ram Nath. They are material witnesses being stamped witnesses. Even ac-cording 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 com-plainant party. The trial court has not discussed this aspect of the case at all. The trial court was required to carefully ap-praise 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 ren-dered the High Court order not sustainable. It appears appro-priate 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. Grant-ing 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 unin-fluenced 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 satis-faction.
