Judgment

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.- Leave granted.

2. Refusal to grant leave to question judgment of acquittal in terms of Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "CrPC") is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. According to the appellant State of Himachal Pradesh, the one line order "Dismissed" of the Himachal Pradesh High Court without assigning reasons therefor does not meet the requirement of law.

3. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 436, 447, 427, 147 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC").

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Smt Manjit Kaur' is a resident of Village Abada Barana, District Una, H.P. She is a housewife. On 30-6-2003 at about .45 p.m. she and her sister-in-law Nirmala Devi were watching television in their house and their children were playing outside, while her husband Gurdial Singh had gone to Kuthar to bring medicines. In the meantime daughter of her sister-in-law aged about 13 years named Poonam came there and told that some persons were uprooting creepers from their field. On this they both came out and saw that the above named accused were doing the same and on seeing the complainant and her sister-in-law the accused came towards the house of the complainant and challenged them that they would set their house on fire. The accused Balbir Singh, Baldev Singh, Jai Gopal and Radhey Shayam were carrying mashals in their hands and with the help of those mashals they lit their thatched house on fire from three sides. When the complainant and her sister-in-law tried to take out their articles from the house, the accused threatened them to throw in the fire. On this, the complainant got frightened and she along with her sister-in-law and children rushed towards Kuthar Kalan while raising cries. On listening their cries Santosh Kumari w/o Jog Raj and Yash Pal s/o Bihari Lal, both residents of Kuthar Kalan, reached at the spot. Thereafter the complainant went to Kuthar Kalan and told about this incident to her husband who informed the fire brigade and police. The police reached at the spot and recorded statement of the complainant Ext. PW-l/A under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "CrPC") upon which FIR, Ext. PW-12/A was recorded against the accused. During investigation the police prepared the photographs of the spot and obtained demarcation of the land over which the house in question was situated. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed and the accused persons faced trial. Thirteen persons were examined as witnesses. PWs 1 and 4 apart from others were stated to be eyewitnesses. The High Court found that there was some delay in lodging FIR and though large number of people were claimed to have gathered at the spot, the witnesses could not have seen the accused persons. The High Court also found that there was some dispute between the parties and, therefore, the prosecution version was suspect. Accordingly, the accused persons were acquitted.

5. The appellant State filed an application for grant of leave. The High Court disposed of the application in the following manner:

"Dismissed."

6. According to learned counsel for the appellant State it was imperative for the High Court to indicate reasons as to why the prayer for grant of leave was found untenable. In the absence of any such reasons the order of the High Court is indefensible. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order.

7. "4 .... Section 378(3) of the Code deals with the power of the High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal. Sections 378(1) and (3) of the Code read as follows:

'378. Appeal in case of acquittal.-(l) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions of subsections (3) and (5), the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from a