2008 Supreme(SC) 1445

2008(6) Supreme 721
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh — Appellant
versus
Manoj Kumar @ Chhotu — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1549 of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1546 of 2007
Decided on : 29-09-08

Important Point
Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378(3) – Respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 376/511 and 506 of ‘IPC’ – Trial Court observing that accusations were not established directed acquittal giving him benefit of doubt – An application for grant of leave in terms of Section 378 of the Code was filed which was dismissed summarily stating “Dismissed” – Appeal –Plea of appellant State that it was imperative on High Court to indicate reasons as to why prayer for grant of leave was found untenable – The trial Court was required to carefully appraise entire evidence and then come to a conclusion – If trial Court was at lapse in this regard High Court was obliged to undertake such an exercise by entertaining appeal – The trial Court on the facts of the case did not perform its duties, as was enjoined on it by law – The High Court ought to have in such circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a first court of appeal, re-appreciated entire evidence on record independently and returned its findings objectively as regards guilt or otherwise of accused – However High Court failed to do so – The questions involved were not trivial – High Court not gave any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal, completely oblivious to fact that by such refusal, a close scrutiny of order of acquittal, by appellate forum, had been lost once and for all – The manner in which appeal against acquittal had been dealt with by High Court left 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 indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order was amendable to further avenue of challenge – The absence of reasons rendered High Court order not sustainable and liable to be set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 5 to 7)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 376/511 and 506 of ‘IPC’. Trial Court observing that accusations were not established directed acquittal giving Respondent benefit of doubt. An application for grant of leave in terms of Section 378 of the Code was filed which was dismissed summarily stating “Dismissed.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        The trial Court was required to carefully appraise entire evidence and then come to a conclusion. If trial Court was at lapse in this regard High Court was obliged to undertake such an exercise by entertaining appeal. The trial Court on the facts of the case did not perform its duties, as was enjoined on it by law. The High Court ought to have in such circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a first court of appeal, re-appreciated entire evidence on record independently and returned its findings objectively as regards guilt or otherwise of accused. However High Court failed to do so. The questions involved were not trivial. High Court not gave any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal, completely oblivious to fact that by such refusal, a close scrutiny of order of acquittal, by appellate forum, had been lost once and for all. The manner in which appeal against acquittal had been dealt with by High Court left much to be desired. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order was amendable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons rendered High Court order not sustainable and liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed in part.