STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus MANOJ KUMAR @ CHHOTU

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 1119 · Decided: 29-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

'f 
..., 
" 
.,. 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 1119 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
MANOJ KUMAR @ CHHOTU 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1549 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 _ 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; s. 378(3): 
.. , 
Rape - Acquittal of accused by trial Court giving benefit 
of doubt - Application to grant/eave to file appeal dismissed 
by High Court - Correctness of -Held: Without appraising 
entire evidence carefully, trial Court arrived at its conclusion . 
and failed to perform its duties as enjoined on it by law - In 
such circumstances, High Court ought to have granted the 
leave and re-appreciated the entire evidence to determine ob-
;ectively guilt/otherwise of accused - High Court has failed to 
do so, moreover, it has not given any reasons while refusing 
to grant leave - Hence, the impugned judgment is unsustain-
able and set aside - Leave to file appeal is granted - Penal 
Code, 1860 - S.376 rlw Ss. 511 & 506. 
Judgment/Order - Reasons - Necessities of. 
... - " 
-· 
. 
Respondent, accused of rape faced trial for commit~ 
ting the offences punishable ulss.376, 506 and 511 of the 
Penal Code. Trial Court acquitted the accused giving him 
benefit of doubt. State filed an application to grant leave 
to file appeal in terms of s.378 (3) of the Criminal Proce-
dure Code, 1973. High Court dismissed the application 
without assigning any reasons. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The trial Court was required to carefully ap-
praise the entire evidence and then come to a conclusion. 
1119 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
J. 
A If the trial Court was at lapse in this regard the High Court 
was obliged to undertake such an exercise by entertain-
ing the appeal. The trial Court on the facts of the case did 
not perform its duties, as was enjoined on it by law. The 
High Court ought to have in such circumstances granted 
B leave and thereafter as a first court of appeal, re-appreci-
.. 
ated the entire evidence on the record independently and 
returned. its findings objectively as regards guilt or other-
wise of the accused. It has failed to do so. The questions 
involved were not trivial. The High Court has not given 
c any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal 
against acquittal, and seems to have been completely 
oblivious to th1~ fact that by such refusal, a close scrutiny 
of the order of acquittal, by the appellate forum, has been 
lost once and for all. (Para - 5) [1123,D-F] 
D 
2.1 Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plain-
;.. 
est consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have 
set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indica-
tive of an application of its mind, all the more when its 
order is amendable to further avenue of challenge. The 
E absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order 
not sustainable. (Para - 5) [1123,G-H] 
State of UP v. Battan and Ors. (2001) ·10 SC 607; State 
of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR (1982) SC 
F 
1215 and Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987) 
2 sec 222 - relied on. 
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1. All 
E.R. 1148 and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 
(1974) LCR 120 - referred to. 
G 
2.2 Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. 
The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the deci-
sion reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, 
,. 
by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts 
1 
to perform their appellate function or exercise the power 
H of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. MANOJ 
1121 
KUMAR @ CHHOTU 
Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judi-
A 
cial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an ap" 
plication of mind to 'the matter before Court. Another ra-
. tionale is·that the affected party can know why the deci-
sion has gone against him. One of the salutary require-
_, 
ments of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the 
8 
orde.r made. (Para - 6) [~124,E-G] 
3. Leave is granted to ttie State to file the appeal. The 
High Court shall entertain the appeal and after formal no-
tice to the respondent hear the appeal and dispose it of 
in accordance with law; uninfluenced by any observation · C 
made in the present appeal. (Para - 7) [1124,H; 1125,A] 
.. Case Law Reference 
(2001) 10 SC 607 
Relied on 
Para - 5 
Para - 5 
AIR (1982) SC

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