KHUMBARAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 888 · Decided: 15-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
I~ 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 888 
KHUMBARAM 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2077of2011) 
October 15, 2015 
[R.K. AGRAWAL AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s. 378(1) and (3)-
c Acquittal of the accused u/ss. 498A, 3048 alternatively u/s. 
302 /PC by trial court (fast track) -Applications by the State 
and the appellant (father of deceased) for leave to appeal 
and criminal revision -Applications dismissed by High Court 
by common order- On appeal by the father of the deceased, 
D held: High Court is required to record reasons while refusing 
to grant leave to appeal - In the present case, High Court 
failed to record reasons for refusing to grant leave to appeal 
- In the facts and circumstances of the case, High Court 
should have granted leave to appeal and thereafter should 
E have reappreciated the evidence and recorded its finding 
independently on merit - High Court should also have 
considered the FSL Report in proper perspective because 
the trial court order was passed without consideration thereof 
F - Even though the State has not come in appeal, in the 
interest of justice, State as well is granted leave to appeal -
Matter remitted to High Court- Penal Code, 1860- ss. 498A 
and 3048 alternatively u/s. 302. 
li 
l-1 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Sub-section (3) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. puts 
a restriction on entertaining of appeals by imposing a 
condition that the leave of the High Court should be first 
obtained before any appeal is entertained. The High 
888 
KHUM BA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
889 
Court while refusing leave must indicate the reasons for A 
refusal to grant leave. Refusal of leave to appeal has the 
effect of foreclosing the right once for all and therefore 
there is a need to record reasons when the High Court 
refuses to grant leave to appeal. [Para 8 and 9] [894-F-G] 
13 
1.2 In the present case, the approach of the High 
Court is completely incorrect. The High Court has not 
recorded any reason as to why leave to appeal was 
refused. In the instant case, there is no dispute that 
deceased died within seven years of marriage in C 
unnatural circumstances. The trial court does not seem 
to have examined the evidence adduced by the 
prosecution in the light of the statutory presumption to 
be raised under Section 1138 of the Evidence Act. In 
such circumstances, the High Court ought to have 
granted leave to appeal and thereafter re-appreciated the 
evidence and recorded its findings independently as 
regards guilt or otherwise of the accused. The High 
Court has not given any reason for refusing to grant leave 
to file appeal against acquittal. The impugned order is 
D 
E 
very cryptic by which the High Court refused leave to 
appeal and dismissed both appeal as well as the revision 
and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside 
and the matter be remitted back to the High Court. Even 
F 
though State has ·not preferred any appeal before this 
Court, as the impugned order is a common order and in 
the interest of justice, it is appropriate to grant leave to 
appeal to the State as well. [Para 11] [896-F-H; 897-A-C] 
State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal And Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 
573:2004 (1) Suppl; SCR 480; State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram 
· Luhar(2004) 5 SCC 568: 2004 (2) SCR 68 - relied on. 
G. 
2. Yet another ground for remitting the matter back H 
to the High Court is that the judgment of the trial court 
890 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A was delivered on 24.03.2009 and the FSL Report was 
received after the disposal of the case by the trial court, 
which shows positive test for the presence of organo 
phosphorous insecticide in the viscera. The High Court 
should have considered the FSL Report in proper 
8 
perspective and as the first appellate court, it should have 
independently examined the matter and recorded its 
findings objectively. [Para 12] [897-D-E] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Dinesh vs. State ofHaryana (2014) 12 SCC 532; 
Rajinder Singh vs. State of Haryana (2013) 15 
SCC 245: 2013 (7) SCR 370; Mangila/ vs. State 
ofRajasthan &Anr. (2001) 8 SCC 519: 2001 (4) 
Suppl. SCR 392 - cited. 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
(2014) 12 sec 532 
cited. 
Para 5 
2013 (7) SCR 370 
cited. 
Para 5 
2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 392 cited. 
Para 5 
2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 480 relied on. 
Para 9 
2004 (2) SCR 68 
relied on. 
Para 10 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 2077 of 2011. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2010 of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.