2000 (5) TMI 1074 - SC - Indian Laws

Leave to appeal an acquittal: refusal without reasons held unsustainable; leave granted and case remanded for merits

Whether the HC could refuse leave to appeal against acquittal without reasons was the dominant issue. The SC held that in an appeal against acquittal the ... Challenged the acquittal by the High Court - refusal to grant leave in an appeal against acquittal - deceased was assaulted by the accused party, leading to his death. - HELD THAT:- The trial court was required to carefully appraise 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, depreciated 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 rendered the High Court order not sustainable. It appears appropriate 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. Granting 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 uninfluenced by any of the observations made by us today. The respondents shall appear before the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court on 7.7.2000, who shall then release the respondents on bail, on their furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction. Issues involved: Appeal against refusal to grant leave in an appeal against acquittal by the High Court.Summary:The appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh was filed against the High Court's refusal to grant leave in an appeal against acquittal and subsequent dismissal of the appeal. The prosecution's case was that the deceased was assaulted by the accused party, leading to his death. The trial court acquitted the accused, but the High Court did not provide reasons for refusing leave to file an appeal against acquittal. The Supreme Court found deficiencies in the trial court's judgment and the High Court's handling of the appeal against acquittal. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, granted leave to the State to file an appeal against acquittal, and directed the High Court to hear and decide the appeal on its merits without being influenced by the Supreme Court's observations.The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of reasons in judicial orders for clarity and justice. The High Court's failure to provide reasons for refusing leave against acquittal rendered its order unsustainable. The Supreme Court highlighted that the trial court did not adequately discuss the evidence, including injuries sustained by both the deceased and the accused party. The High Court was instructed to conduct a thorough review of the evidence and make a decision on the appeal against acquittal based on its own assessment. The respondents were directed to appear before the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court for bail proceedings.