1. Appeal against High Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal against an order of acquittal for offences under the Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 727
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, M R Shah, JJ.
Brijesh Singh - Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No 646 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 8204 of 2016)
Decided On : 20-07-2021
Important Points
When determining leave to appeal against an acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, the High Court must issue a speaking order providing reasons that demonstrate an application of mind to the evidence and findings, rather than merely stating the trial court's view was reasonably possible.
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 141 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 498A, 304B, 149 and 302 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3 and 4 - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Demand of dowry – Offence of murder - Committed offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 304B and Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has submitted that while considering an application for grant of leave to appeal against order of acquittal - High Court was required to scrutinize the evidence and findings and to determine as to whether leave should be granted to appeal. In this context, learned counsel placed reliance on provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Court’s view that impugned High Court does not meet requirements which are to be observed, consistent with provisions of Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Learned counsel for second to sixth respondents submits that there are concurrent findings of fact which have led to acquittal of accused and he sought to invite attention of Court to the findings which have been recorded by trial Court – Held, Court has been apprised of fact that State of Uttar Pradesh had also filed an application for leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal by the trial court and leave to appeal was denied by High Court on 7 July 2015. common ground that in declining to grant leave to the State to appeal, High Court followed order which is impugned in the present appeal, in which the informant was denied leave to appeal by judgment of High Court - we are of the view that an order of remand would be warranted to the High Court – Appeal is allow.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends High Court must scrutinize evidence for leave to appeal; respondents argue concurrent findings of fact justify the acquittal. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. High Court cannot dismiss leave to appeal by merely stating the trial court's view was possible without demonstrating an application of mind to evidence and findings. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. When determining leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, the High Court must provide reasons indicating an application of mind to evidence and findings. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. What is the duty of the High Court when considering an application for leave to appeal against an order of acquittal?
The High Court must scrutinize the evidence and findings and set forth reasons indicating an application of mind to the nature of the evidence. Merely observing that the trial judge took a possible view is insufficient and inconsistent with its duty. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. What is the legal effect of a High Court refusing leave to appeal against acquittal without providing reasons?
The absence of reasons renders the High Court's order unsustainable. Reasons are imperative to introduce clarity and ensure that the appellate forum has performed a close scrutiny of the order of acquittal. (Para 7 )
7. Under what circumstances must the High Court independently reappreciate evidence when dealing with an appeal against acquittal?
If the trial court lapsed in carefully appraising the entire evidence to reach its conclusion, the High Court is obliged to entertain the appeal and independently reappreciate the entire evidence on record to return objective findings. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. By a judgment dated 14 August 2014, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, acquitted the second to sixth respondents in Sessions Trial No 2125 of 2012, where they were tried for having committed offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 304B and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The judgment of the trial Judge was sought to be assailed before the High Court by the appellant, the original informant, by filing an application for leave to appeal, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application (Leave to Appeal No 351/2014). The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the application on the basis of the following reasons:
“On a careful perusal of the judgment and record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge is perverse or unreasonable. Simply because another view might have been taken of the evidence provides no ground for interfering with the order of acquittal unless the view taken by the trial judge is not a possible view. On the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge was not a reasonably possible view.
In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the application for leave to appeal which is rejected and consequently the Appeal is also dismissed.”
3. Notice was issued in the Special Leave Petition on 17 October 2016 after condoning the delay. In pursuance of the notice, Mr Z U Khan has appeared on behalf of the second to sixth respondents.
4. Ms Sonia Mathur, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that while considering an application for the grant of leave to appeal against the order of acquittal, the High Court was required to scrutinize the evidence and findings and to determine as to whether leave should be granted to appeal. In this context, learned counsel placed reliance on the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and on the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Giriraj Dubey, (2013) 15 SCC 257.
5. On the other hand, Mr Z U Khan, learned counsel for the second to sixth respondents submits that there are concurrent findings of fact which have led to the acquittal of the accused and he sought to invite the attention of the Court to the findings which have been recorded by the trial Court.
6. Having evaluated the rival submissions, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the High Court does not meet the requirements which are to be observed, consistent with the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, where the High Court hears an application for leave to appeal against an order of acquittal. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs Giriraj Dubey (supra), a two-Judge Bench of this Court has extensively adverted to the precedents of this Court on the subject. The earlier decisions which have been followed in the above decision are: (i) State of Maharashtra vs Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC 129; (ii) State of Orissa vs Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568 (iii) State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal, (2004) 5 SCC 573; (iv) State of U.P. vs Ajai Kumar, (2008) 3 SCC 351; and (v) State of Maharashtra vs Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475. The principle which has been enunciated is that the High Court must set forth its reasons, indicating at least in brief, an application of mind to the nature of the evidence and the findings which have been arrived at. In other words, merely observing that the order of the trial Judge has taken a possible view without an application of mind to the evidence and the findings is not consistent with the duty which is cast upon the High Court while determining whether leave should be granted to appeal against an order of acquittal.
7. In State of Orissa vs Dhaniram Luhar (supra), the principles which must govern a case such as the present, where the High Court is requested to grant leave to appeal again
