LexKUMARI SHAIMA JAFARI versus IRPHAN @ GULFAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2012] 11 S.C.R. 792 KUMAR! SHAIMA JAFARI v. IRPHAN @ GULFAM AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 2093-2094 of 2012) DECEMBER 11, 2012 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: c Art. 136 - Petition for special leave to appeal, by complainant challenging order of High Court dismissing Government Appeal by a cryptic order - Held: Regard being had to the essential constitutional concept of jurisdiction under Art. 136, the application for permission to file the special leave D petition is allowed and the applicant is permitted to prosecute the same. Appeal: Criminal appeal - Government Appeal dismissed by E High Court without ascribing reasons - Held: The deliberation by High Court while exercising criminal appellate jurisdiction has to be reflective of due cogitation and requisite rumination - The judgment passed by High Court does not show any contemplation or independent application of mind as required F of an appellate court - Reference to the trial court judgment in such a manner would not clothe the judgment to be reflective of reasons or indicative of any analysis - Judgment passed by High Court is set aside and the appeal remitted to it for re-hearing. G H The instant appeal by special leave was filed by the complainant with an application for permission to file the same. The appellant challenged the order of the High Court declining to entertain the Government Appeal 792 KUMARI SHAIMA JAFARI v. IRPHAN @ GULFAM 793 AND ORS. against judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused A persons of the offences punishable u/ss. 363, 366, 328, 323, 506, 368 and 376(2)(g) IPC. It was contended for the appellant that it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to ascribe reasons and not to dismiss the appeal in a cryptic manner by referring to certain paragraphs of B the trial court judgment. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The appellant was the complainant and the real aggrieved party. Regard being had to the essential C constitutional concept of jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, the application for permission to file the special leave petition is allowed and the applicant is permitted to prosecute the same. [Para 2] [795-E-G] Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham 1979 (3) SCR 482 = (1979) 2 SCC 297 and P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam (1980) 3 SCC 141 - relied on. D 2.1 The deliberation by the High Court while exercising criminal appellate jurisdiction has to be E reflective of due cogitation and requisite rumination. It must reflect application of mind, consideration of facts in proper perspective and appropriate ratiocination either for affirmation or reversal of the judgment. The reasons ascribed may not be lengthy but it should be cogent, F germane and reflective. It is dangerous to forget that reason is the essential foundation on which a conclusion can be based. Giving reasons for an order is the sacrosanct requirement of law. The reasons in criminal jurisprudence must flow from the material on record. G [Para 13-14] [799-0-E, G; 800-A] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jagdish Singh and Others 1990 (Supp) SCC 150; State of U.P. v. Haripal Singh and Another (1998) 8 SCC 747; Narendra Nath Khaware v. Parasnath H 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R. A Khavare and Others 2003 (3) SCR 683 = (2003) 5 SCC 488; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and others 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 208 =JT (2003) Supp 2 SCC 354 and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar 2004 (2) SCR 68=JT (2004) 2 SC 172 - relied on. B c D E F G H Bossuet; and Nyaya Shastras - referred to. 2.2 The judgment passed by the High Court does not show any contemplation or independent application of mind as required of an appellate court. Reference to the trial court judgment in such a manner would not clothe the judgment to be reflective of reasons or indicative of any analysis. The judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and the appeal is remitted to it for re-hearing. [Paras 19 and 20] [801-C-D, E] Case Law Reference: 1979 (3) SCR 482 relied on Para 2 (1980) 3 sec 141 relied on Para 2 1990 (Supp) sec 150 relied on Para 9 (1998) 8 sec 747 relied on Para 10 2003 (3) SCR 683 relied on Para 11 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 208 relied on Para 14 2004 (2) SCR 68 relied on Para 14 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2093-2094 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 04.07.2012 a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.