STATE OF HARYANA versus RAM PAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 1112 · Decided: 07-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF HARYANA 
V. 
RAM PAL AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 7, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H.KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 378(3)-Trialfor offences 
under /PC-Decision of trial Court-Application uls 378(3)-Summary 
C dismissal by High Court-On appeal, held: In the facts of the case trial Court 
did not appraise the entire evidence-On account of such lapse High Court 
ought to have re-appreciated the entire evidence independently-Absence of 
reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable-Penal Code, 
1860. 
D 
Judgment-Reasons-Recording-Requirement for-Held: Right to 
reason is an indispensable part of sound judicial system-It is requirement of 
principle of natural justice-Reasons introduce clarity in an order-Principles 
of Natural Justice-Administrative Law. 
Respondents-accused were tried for offences punishable u/ss. 148, 
E 302, 452, 506, 323 r/w Section 149 IPC. Trial Court held that only some 
of the accused persons were responsible for the act. Assault by one accused 
was an individual act and he was guilty of offence punishable u/s. 304 Part 
II IPC; that the other two accused were liable to be convicted for offences 
punishable u/ss. 452 and 323 r/w Section 34 IPC; and that since the total 
F number of persons proved to have committed the offences was only three, 
provisions of Section 149 were not attracted. Rest of the accused were 
acquitted. Application of the State in terms of Section 378 Cr.P.C. was 
dismissed by High Court without giving any reasons thereto. Hence the 
present appeal by the State inter alia questioning the manner of disposal 
of the application by the High Court. 
G 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The trial Court was required to carefully appraise the 
entire evidence and then come to a conclusion. If the trial Court was at 
lapse in this regard the High Court was obliged to undertake such an 
H 
1112 
STATEOFHARYANAv. RAM PAL 
1113 
exercise by entertaining the appeal. The trial Court on the facts of this A 
case did not perform its duties, as was enjoined on it by law. High Court 
ought to have in such circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a first 
court of appeal, re-appreciated the entire evidence on the record 
independently and returned its findings objectively as regards guilt or 
otherwise of the accused. rt has failed to do so. The questions involved B 
were not trivial. The question regarding application of Sections 302 and 
149 IPC as raised does require consideration, keeping in view the evidence 
adduced and conclusions of trial Court. (1115-H; 1116-A-BI 
2.1. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration 
of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reas<!ns, howsoever C 
brief, in its order, indicative of an application of its mi~d; all the more when 
its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons 
has rendered the High Court order not sustainable. 11116-C-DI 
2.2. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the 
same it becomes lifeless. Reasons are live links between the mind of the D 
decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion 
arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis 
on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face 
of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the 
Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial 
review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an E 
indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient 
to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another 
rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone 
against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling 
out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking out. The p 
"inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial 
or quasi-judicial performance. 11116-F-H; 1117-A-C( 
State of U.P. v. Battan and Ors., (20011 10 SCC 607; State of 
Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, AIR (1982) SC 1215; Jawahar 
Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors., 1198712SCC222 and Raj Kishore Jha G 
v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2003) 7 Supreme 152, relied on. 
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, 119711 1 All E.R. 1148; 
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) ltd. v. Crabtres, (1974) ICR 120 (NIRC), 
referred to. 
H 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.