BRIJESH SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 522 · Decided: 20-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
BRIJESH SINGH
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No 646 of 2021)
JULY 20, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 378 – Appeal against
acquittal – Grant of leave to appeal against order of acquittal by
trial court – Principles to be considered by the High Court – On
facts, trial court acquitted second to sixth respondents for commission
of offence under the Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act –
Application for leave to appeal by the informant – Rejected by the
High Court – On appeal, held: Judgment of the High Court did not
meet the requirements to be observed, consistent with the provisions
of s. 378 – High Court to set forth its reasons, indicating at least in
brief, an application of mind to the nature of the evidence and the
findings arrived at – Mere observation that the order of the trial
judge has taken a possible view without an application of mind to
the evidence and the findings not consistent with the duty cast upon
the High Court while determining said application – State had also
filed an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of
acquittal by the trial court and the same was denied by the High
Court following the impugned judgment – In view thereof, the
impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside – Matter
remitted to the High Court for determination afresh – Penal Code,
1860 – s. 302 r/w s. 149, ss. 304B and 498A – Dowry Prohibition
Act - ss. 3 and 4.
State of Madhya Pradesh vs Giriraj Dubey (2013) 15
SCC 257:[2013] 1 SCR 1097; State of Maharashtra
vs Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (1981) 4 SCC 129; State
of Orissa vs Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568:[2004]
2 SCR 68; State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal (2004) 5
SCC 573:[2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 480; State of U.P. vs
Ajai Kumar (2008) 3 SCC 351:[2008] 2 SCR 552; State
of Maharashtra vs Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008)
9 SCC 475:[2008] 13 SCR 750; Chaman Lal vs State
of Himachal Pradesh (2020) SCC Online SC 988 –
referred to.
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 522
522
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
523
Case Law Reference
[2013] 1 SCR 1097
referred to
Para 4
(1981) 4 SCC 129
referred to
Para 6
[2004] 2 SCR 68
referred to
Para 6
[2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 480 referred to
Para 6
[2008] 2 SCR 552
referred to
Para 6
[2008] 13 SCR 750
referred to
Para 6
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 646 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Application U/S 372 Cr.P.C.
(Leave to Appeal) No.351 of 2014.
Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv., Uday Prakash, Punit Pathak, Vipul
Shukla, Sujit Kumar, Ramjee Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant.
Rajan Chourasia, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Surendra Nath Pandey,
Z. U. Khan, M. Z. Chaudhary, Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, Syed Imtiyaz Ali,
Ali Safeer Farooqi, Aftab Ali Khan, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
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
BRIJESH SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
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 co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.