LexSUGA RAM @ CHHUGA RAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SUGA RAM @ CHHUGA RAM A V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] B Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3: Section 3 78(3)-Acquillal by Trial Court-Application for leave to appeal by State-Dismissed by High Court-Order of dismissal, held, not justified as C it was non-reasoned and cryptic-High Court ought to have given reasons, howsoever brief, indicative of application of its mind, moreso when its order is a111e11able to further challenge. Section 397 rlw 401-Revision-Maintainability~Acquittal by Trial D Court-Revision application filed by infor111an1-Meanwhile application for leave to appeal filed by State-That application dismissed by a non-reasoned order-On that ground revision application· too dismissed-Sustainability- Held, not sustainable-Direction given to High Court to hear both the applications together-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Procedure- Mode of hearing. E Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Appeal against acquit/al-By private party-Maintainability of-Held: Supre111e Court can entertain appeals against judg111ents of acquit/a/ by High Court at the instance of interested private parties also--Circu111stance that the Code does not provide for an appeal to the High Court against an order of acquittal by a subordinate F Court, at the instance of a private party, has no rek'Vance to the question of the power of Supreme Court under Article I 36. Respondents 2 to 5 faced trial for certain offences under the I PC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) G Act, 1989. They were acquitted by the Trial Court. Appellant filed application for revision of the order of acquittal under Section 397 r/w 401 CrPC which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the application for grant of leave to appeal filed by the State in terms of Section 378(3), CrPC had already been dismissed. The application for 329 H 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A grant of leave to appeal was taken up while the revision petition challenging the acquittal was still pending. In appeal to this Court, it was submitted that the High Court had summarily rejected the application for grant of leave to appeal filed by the State by a non-reasoned cryptic order which was therefore not B sustainable; that the revision application filed by the appellant cannot be treated as infructuous and not entertainable merely because the State's application for grant of leave to appeal was rejected and that in any event, the revision application was filed earlier and should have been taken up alongwith the application for grant of leave to appeal. c Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 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 D exercise by entertaining the appeal. The trial Court on the facts of this case did not perform its duties, as was enjoined on it by law. The 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. It has failed to do so. The questions involved E were nflt trivial. The primary ground for acquittal seems to be that the eye-witnesses did not make any effort to save the deceased and therefore their presence is doubtful. The High Court has not given any reasons for 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 F of the order of acquittal, by the appellate forum, has been lost once and for all. The manner in which appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be desired. 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 ir.dicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further G avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable. 1334-F-H; 335-A-BI 1.2. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arri\•ed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.