Supreme Court of India
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusMANOJ KUMAR @ CHHOTU
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1101
- Decided
- 29 September 2008
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The High Court’s refusal to grant leave without reasons is unsustainable; leave must be granted and the appeal heard, with the trial court’s acquittal re‑appraised.
Summary
The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed the acquittal of Manoj Kumar, who was charged with rape, assault and criminal intimidation under Sections 376, 506 and 511 IPC. The trial court acquitted him on the basis of benefit of doubt, but the State sought leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the application without providing any reasons. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had not carefully appraised the evidence and, consequently, the High Court was obligated to grant leave and re‑appreciate the evidence. Moreover, the High Court’s order was unsustainable because it was rendered without any reasons, violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, granted leave to the State to file an appeal, and directed the High Court to hear the appeal on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing leave to appeal against an acquittal under Section 378(3) CrPC without recording reasons.
- Whether the trial court’s acquittal was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence.
- Whether the absence of reasons in the High Court’s order renders it unsustainable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378(1), s. 378(3), s. 378(5)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 376, s. 506, s. 511
Subjects
criminal appealacquittalSection 378 CrPCreasons in judicial ordersbenefit of doubtrapenatural justice
Judgment
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 1119
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH A
v.
MANOJ KUMAR @ CHHOTU
(Criminal Appeal No. 1549 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 _
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; s. 378(3):
.. ,
Rape - Acquittal of accused by trial Court giving benefit c
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
'f such circumstances, High Court ought to have granted the D
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 E
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 F
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.
G
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 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
1215 and Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987)
F 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
AIR (1982) SC 1215 Relied on Para - 5 D
(1987) 2 sec 222 Relied on Para - 5
(1971) 1 All E.R. 114'3 . Referred to Para - 6
'.
(1974) LCR 120 Referred to Para - 6
E
CRIMINAL aPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Crrminal Appeal
No. 1549 of 2008
From the final Judgment dated 20/11/2006 of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 706 of
"" 1006 . F
Naresh K: Sharma for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
G
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing the ap-
& plication filed in terms of Section 378(3) of the Code of Crimi-
nal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The respondent faced
trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sec- H ·
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A tions 376/511and506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
'IPC'). The Trial Court found that the accusations were not es-
tablished and directed his acquittal giving him the benefit of
doubt. An application for grant of leave in terms of Section 378
of the Code was filed which was dismissed summarily stating
B "Dismissed". •
3. According to learned counsel for the appellant-State it
was imperative on the High Court to indicate reasons as to why
the prayer for grant of leave was found untenable. In the ab-
sence of any such reasons the order of the High Court is inde-
c fensible.
4. Section 378(3) of the Code deals with the power of the
High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal. Section 378(1)
and (3) read as follow:
D "378(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2) t
and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5),-
(a) the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the
Public Prosecutor to present an Appeal to the Court
of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a
E Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-
bailable offence;
(b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the
Public Prosecutor to present an Appeal to the High
F Court from an original or appellate order of an ~
acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court
[not being an order under clause (a)] or an order of
acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.
(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in
G which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi
Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946) or
by any other agency empowered to make investigation
into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code,
H 3 [the Central Government may, subject to the provisions
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. MANOJ 1123
.~.
KUMAR @ CHHOTU [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
of sub-section {3), also direct the Public Prosecutor to A
-i present an Appeal-
(a) to the Court of Session, from an order of acquittal
passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable
..J and non-bailable offence;
B.
(b) to the High Court from an original or appellate order
of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a
High Court [not being an order under clause (a)] or
an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session
in revision. c
(3) No Appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
shall be entertained except with the leave of the High
Court."
5. The trial Court was required to carefully appraise the
D
entire evidence and then come to a conclusion. If the trial Court
was at lapse in this regard the High Court was obliged to un·
dertake such an exercise by entertaining 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 cir-.·
cumstances granted leave and thereafter as a first court of ap-
E
peal, re-appreciated the entire evidence on the record ind.e-
pendently and returned its findings objectively as regards guilt
or otherwise of the accused. lt has failed to do ~o. The ques-
tions involved were not trivial. The High Court has not given any
-"':
reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquit- F
tal, 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 much to be desired. Reasons introduce clar- G
ity 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 amendable to further avenue of challenge. The ab-
sence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sus- H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
.4
A tainable. Similar view was expressed in State of UP v. Battan
and Ors. (2001 (10) SC 607). About two decades back in State
of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Cha wan (Al R 1982 SC
1215) the desirability of a speaking order while dealing with an
application for grant of leave was highlighted. The requirement
B of indicating reasons in such cases has been judicially
recognised as imperative. The view was reiterated in Jawahar
Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987 (2) SCC 222). Judi-
cial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this Court, can-
not be forsakem, under any pretext by any authority or Court, be
c it even the Highest Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 of
the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution').
6. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning
M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1)
All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the
D fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machin-
ery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LC R 120) it was observed:
"Failure to givE~ reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons
are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the con-
troversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at".
E Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on
recording reasons is that ifthe decision reveals the "inscrutable
face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually im-
possible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or
exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of
F the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound ~
judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an appli-
cation of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is
that the affected party can know why the decision has gone
against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice
is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a
G
speaking out The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily
incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the impugned
judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and is set aside.
...
•
H We grant leave to the State to file the appeal. The High Court
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. MANOJ 1125
KUMAR@ CHHOTU [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
shall entertain the appeal and after formal notice to the respon- A
dent hear the appeal and dispose it of in accordance with law,.
uninfluenced by any observation made in the present appeal.
The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated.
... S.K.S . Appeal partly allowed.
B
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "criminal appeal"Sign in to search