LexTUTUL KUMAR! SEN versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 321 , i- TUTUL KUMAR! SEN A "' v STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 200~ APRIL 28, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Judgment/Order: Non reasoned order - Chargesheet - Prayer for discharge in terms of s.227 CrPC, not accepted by the trial court - Revision - High Court held that trial court erred in refusing to discharge the accused - Challenged - Held: c The order of High Court was unreasoned -Absence of reasons 1 rendered the order unsustainable - Principles of natural ;ustice. ; Prosecution case was that the accused-respondent D ..,, 2 committed rape of appellant-informant. After investi- gation, police submitted charge sheet. The application for discharge was filed primarily on the ground that age of - the informant was not as was shown and therefore no offence under either Sec. 376 or 493 IPC was made out. E The trial Court did not accept prayer for discharge. ' Respondent 2 filed revision petition before High -,;.. Court. It held that trial court was patently in error in refusing to discharge the accused. Hence the appeal. Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to F High Court, the Court HELD : 1. The order of the High Court wa~ practically unreasoned. It is not certainly the way a revision petition was to be disposed of. There was absolutely no G . ·'* discussion as to why the conclusions of the trial court in .. rejecting the prayer made in terms of Sec. 227 Cr.P.C. were unsustainable. No basis has also been indicated as to why High Court was of the view that no offence was 321 H 322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R A disclosed in the FIR. 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 B affected party ought to know why the decision was passed against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's Judgment not sustainable. [Paras 5,6] [324-S-E; 325-A] c State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar 2004 (5) SCC 568 - relied on. Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All r- E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 LCR 120 - referred to. D Case Law Reference ,,. 2004 (5) sec 568 relied on Para 5 1971 (1)All E.R.1148 referred to Para 5 E 1974 LCR 120 referred to Para 5 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2003 From the Judgement and Order dated 13.12.2001 of the F Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 363 of 2001. S.K. Sinha, for the Appellant. .. j Gopal Prasad, Prashant Kumar, for the Respondent. G The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. .... 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned single Judge of Jharkhand High Court allowing the petition filed H by the respondent No.2. \ TUTUL KUMAR! SEN V. 323 STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.) _, ..._.. 2. The factual matrix needed to be noted in brief . A An application was filed by the respondent No.2 praying for discharge in terms of Sec.227 of the Code of Criminal, Procedure 1973 (in short 'the Code'). The move was opposed by the State. The case was registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 493 and 376 of the Indian B Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') on the basis of report filed by the present appellant. The allegation in the FIR is that after two days of Baisakh Purnima the accused came to the house of informant, picked c her and committed rape on her. It was further the case of the informant that on the pretext that the accused would marry her, she was repeatedly subjected to rape and became pregnant and started pressurising on the accused for marriage. The accused and his family members refused and therefore the information was lodged. After investigation police submitted a D "lf charge-sheet. The application for discharge was filed primarily on the ground that age of the informant was not as was shown and therefore no offence under either Sec. 376 or 493 IPC was made out. The trial Court held that this was not a case where the prayer for discharge could be accepted. E The respondent N
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.