BRIJESH SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

522                      [2021]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    6 S.C.R. 522                [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A                           BRIJESH SINGH
                                    v.
                STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
                     (Criminal Appeal No 646 of 2021)
                              JULY 20, 2021
B
              [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                         M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
              Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 378 – Appeal against
      acquittal – Grant of leave to appeal against order of acquittal by
      trial court – Principles to be considered by the High Court – On
C
      facts, trial court acquitted second to sixth respondents for commission
      of offence under the Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act –
      Application for leave to appeal by the informant – Rejected by the
      High Court – On appeal, held: Judgment of the High Court did not
      meet the requirements to be observed, consistent with the provisions
D     of s. 378 – High Court to set forth its reasons, indicating at least in
      brief, an application of mind to the nature of the evidence and the
      findings arrived at – Mere observation that the order of the trial
      judge has taken a possible view without an application of mind to
      the evidence and the findings not consistent with the duty cast upon
      the High Court while determining said application – State had also
E     filed an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of
      acquittal by the trial court and the same was denied by the High
      Court following the impugned judgment – In view thereof, the
      impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside – Matter
      remitted to the High Court for determination afresh – Penal Code,
      1860 – s. 302 r/w s. 149, ss. 304B and 498A – Dowry Prohibition
F     Act - ss. 3 and 4.
              State of Madhya Pradesh vs Giriraj Dubey (2013) 15
              SCC 257:[2013] 1 SCR 1097; State of Maharashtra
              vs Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (1981) 4 SCC 129; State
              of Orissa vs Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568:[2004]
G             2 SCR 68; State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal (2004) 5
              SCC 573:[2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 480; State of U.P. vs
              Ajai Kumar (2008) 3 SCC 351:[2008] 2 SCR 552; State
              of Maharashtra vs Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008)
              9 SCC 475:[2008] 13 SCR 750; Chaman Lal vs State
              of Himachal Pradesh (2020) SCC Online SC 988 –
H             referred to.
                                         522
  BRIJESH SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS                       523


                        Case Law Reference                                 A
      [2013] 1 SCR 1097            referred to            Para 4
      (1981) 4 SCC 129             referred to            Para 6
      [2004] 2 SCR 68              referred to            Para 6
      [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 480 referred to                 Para 6           B
      [2008] 2 SCR 552             referred to            Para 6
      [2008] 13 SCR 750            referred to            Para 6
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 646 of 2021.                                                           C
      From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Application U/S 372 Cr.P.C.
(Leave to Appeal) No.351 of 2014.
      Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv., Uday Prakash, Punit Pathak, Vipul
Shukla, Sujit Kumar, Ramjee Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant.               D

      Rajan Chourasia, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Surendra Nath Pandey,
Z. U. Khan, M. Z. Chaudhary, Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, Syed Imtiyaz Ali,
Ali Safeer Farooqi, Aftab Ali Khan, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The following Order of the Court was passed :                        E
                               ORDER
      1. Leave granted.
       2. By a judgment dated 14 August 2014, the Additional Sessions
Judge, Ghaziabad, acquitted the second to sixth respondents in Sessions
                                                                           F
Trial No 2125 of 2012, where they were tried for having committed
offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section
304B and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The judgment of the trial Judge was sought
to be assailed before the High Court by the appellant, the original
informant, by filing an application for leave to appeal, being Criminal    G
Miscellaneous Application (Leave to Appeal No 351/2014). The Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the
application on the basis of the following reasons:
      “On a careful perusal of the judgment and record, it cannot be
      said that the view taken by the trial judge is perverse or           H
524               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A              unreasonable. Simply because another view might have been taken
               of the evidence provides no ground for interfering with the order
               of acquittal unless the view taken by the trial judge is not a possible
               view. On the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that
               the view taken by the trial judge was not a reasonably possible
               view.
B
               In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the application for
               leave to appeal which is rejected and consequently the Appeal is
               also dismissed.”
           3. Notice was issued in the Special Leave Petition on 17 October
C     2016 after condoning the delay. In pursuance of the notice, Mr Z U
      Khan has appeared on behalf of the second to sixth respondents.
            4. Ms Sonia Mathur, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
      appellant has submitted that while considering an application for the grant
      of leave to appeal against the order of acquittal, the High Court was
D     required to scrutinize the evidence and findings and to determine as to
      whether leave should be granted to appeal. In this context, learned counsel
      placed reliance on the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
      Procedure 1973 and on the decision of this Court in State of Madhya
      Pradesh vs Giriraj Dubey1.
E             5. On the other hand, Mr Z U Khan, learned counsel for the
      second to sixth respondents submits that there are concurrent findings
      of fact which have led to the acquittal of the accused and he sought to
      invite the attention of the Court to the findings which have been recorded
      by the trial Court.
F            6. Having evaluated the rival submissions, we are of the view that
      the impugned judgment of the High Court does not meet the requirements
      which are to be observed, consistent with the provisions of Section 378
      of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, where the High Court hears an
      application for leave to appeal against an order of acquittal. In State of
      Madhya Pradesh vs Giriraj Dubey (supra), a two-Judge Bench of
G     this Court has extensively adverted to the precedents of this Court on
      the subject. The earlier decisions which have been followed in the above
      decision are: (i) State of Maharashtra vs Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan 2;

      1
          (2013) 15 SCC 257
      2
H         (1981) 4 SCC 129
    BRIJESH SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS                         525


(ii) State of Orissa vs Dhaniram Luhar3, (iii) State of Rajasthan vs.          A
Sohan Lal4; (iv) State of U.P. vs Ajai Kumar5; and (v) State of
Maharashtra vs Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar6. The principle which
has been enunciated is that the High Court must set forth its reasons,
indicating at least in brief, an application of mind to the nature of the
evidence and the findings which have been arrived at. In other words,
                                                                               B
merely observing that the order of the trial Judge has taken a possible
view without an application of mind to the evidence and the findings is
not consistent with the duty which is cast upon the High Court while
determining whether leave should be granted to appeal against an order
of acquittal.
       7. In State of Orissa vs Dhaniram Luhar (supra),the principles          C
which must govern a case such as the present, where the High Court is
requested to grant leave to appeal against an order of acquittal by the
trial court have been enunciated. The Court has observed:
       “6. The trial court was required to carefully appraise the entire
       evidence and then come to a conclusion. If the trial court was at       D
       lapse in this regard the High Court was obliged to undertake such
       an 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, reappreciated the      E
       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 were not trivial. The
       effect of the admission of the accused in the background of
       testimony of official witnesses and the documents exhibited needed
       adjudication in appeal. The High Court has not given any reasons        F
       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 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          G
       much to be desired. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On
       plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set
3
  (2004) 5 SCC 568
4
  (2004) 5 SCC 573
5
  (2008) 3 SCC 351
6
  (2008) 9 SCC 475                                                             H
526                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A              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 reasons has rendered
               the High Court order not sustainable. Similar view was expressed
               in State of U.P. v. Battan [(2001) 10 SCC 607: 2003 SCC (Cri)
               639]. About two decades back in State of Maharashtra v. Vithal
B
               Rao Pritirao Chawan [(1981) 4 SCC 129: 1981 SCC (Cri) 807:
               AIR 1982 SC 1215] the desirability of a speaking order while
               dealing with an application for grant of leave was highlighted.
               The requirement of indicating reasons in such cases has been
               judicially recognised as imperative. The view was reiterated
C              in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh [(1987) 2 SCC 222: 1987
               SCC (Cri) 347]. Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law
               by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any
               authority or court, be it even the highest court in a State, oblivious
               to Article 141 of the Constitution.”
D            8. These principles have been more recently followed in a judgment
      of this Court in Chaman Lal vs State of Himachal Pradesh7 [Criminal
      Appeal No 1229 of 2017, decided on 3 December 2020].
             9. The Court has been apprised of the fact that the State of Uttar
      Pradesh had also filed an application for leave to appeal against the
E     judgment of acquittal by the trial court and leave to appeal was denied
      by the High Court on 7 July 2015. However, it is common ground that in
      declining to grant leave to the State to appeal, the High Court followed
      order which is impugned in the present appeal, in which the informant
      was denied leave to appeal by the judgment of the High Court dated 24
      September 2014.
F
            10. For the above reasons, we are of the view that an order of
      remand would be warranted to the High Court. We accordingly allow
      the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High
      Court dated 24 September 2014 and remit Criminal Miscellaneous
      Application (Leave to Appeal No 351/2014) to the High Court of
G     Judicature at Allahabad for determination afresh.
               11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

      Nidhi Jain                                                       Appeal allowed.

      7
H         (2020) SCC Online SC 988