STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus PARAS RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 6 · Decided: 03-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 1 S.C.R. 6 
A 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
II. 
PARAS RAM AND ORS. 
(Crl. A. No. 1 of 2008) 
B 
JANUARY 3, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S.378: 
c 
Accused persons allegedly committed offences 
punishable u/ss. 436, 447 and 506 /PC - Acquitted by Trial 
Coult - Leave to file appeal - Grant of - Dismissed by High 
Coult without assigning any reasons - Correctness of- Held: 
Incorrect - On facts, trial Court did not perform its duties in 
appraising the evidence carefully before arriving at its 
D conclusion acquitting accused - Under such circumstances, 
High Court ought to have granted leave, re-appreciated entire 
evidence as first Court of appeal and returned its finding 
objectively- High Court by refusing to grant leave to file appeal 
lost a close scrutiny of the order of acquittal - In the interest of 
E justice, High Court ought to have set forth reasons indicative 
of application of its mind - More so, when its order is amenable 
to further challenge - Besides, reasons introduce clarity in an 
order and substitute subjectivity by objectivity - Absence of 
reasons has rendered the order of the High Court 
F unsustainable - Leave to file appeal granted - Principles of 
:--
natural justice - Requirements of. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Inscrutable face of the sphinx' - Meaning of 
G 
The question which arose for.determination in this 
appeal before this Court was as to whether the High Court 
was right in dismissing the application to grant leave to 
appeal without assigning any reasons against the;! 
acquittal of accused persons. 
H 
6 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. PARAS RAM 
7 
AND ORS. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
~ 
HELD: 1.1 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 exercise B 
by entertaining the appeal. The trial Court on the facts of 
this case did not perform its duties, as was enjoined c1n it 
by law. The High Court ought to have in such 
-1 
circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a first court 
of appeal, re-appreciated the entire evidence on the recofd c 
independently and returned its findings objectively as 
regards guilt or otherwise of the accused. It has failed to 
do so. (Para - 8) (11-A, B) 
1.2 The questions involved in this case were not 
trivial. The High Court has not given any reasons for D 
refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal, and 
seems to have been completely oblivious to the 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 - 8) (11-C) 
E 
1.3 Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest 
consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set 
forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative 
of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is 
amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of F 
_j 
reasons has rendered the High Court order not 
sustainable. (Para - 8) (11-D, E) 
State of U.P v. Battan and Ors (2001) 10 SCC 607; State 
of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR (1982) 
SC 1215 and Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and G 
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. 
H 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
1.4 Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The1 
f3mphasis on recording reasons is that if the deci:sio'(1 
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 
B judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. 
Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial 
system, reasons at lea~t sufficient to indicate an 
application of mind to the matter before Court. Another J. 
rationale is that the affected party can know why the 
c decision has gone against him. One of the salutary 
requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for 
the order made. (Para - 9) (12-8, C, D) 
D 
State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2004 (1) SCC 547 - relied 
on. 
2. The State is granted leave to file the appeal. The 
High Court shall entertain the appeal and after formal 
notice to the respondents hear the ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.