Holding

The High Court's reliance solely on the telegram was untenable; the order dismissing the appeal is set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh charged Ajai Kumar and others under IPC sections 394, 307 and 411 for allegedly snatching Rs 1,25,000 from a bank and injuring two victims. Part of the stolen money, bearing the bank's stamp, was recovered from the accused. The trial court acquitted the appellant, relying on the victims' inability to identify the exact notes. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the State's appeal, basing its decision solely on a telegram suggesting a discrepancy in the arrest date, and held the recovery doubtful. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reasoning was presumptuous, as it ignored crucial evidence of the victims and the recovered notes, and therefore set aside the High Court order and remitted the case for fresh consideration. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of a telegram indicating a discrepancy in the arrest date.
Whether the evidence of the victims and the recovered bank‑stamped notes is sufficient to sustain convictions under Sections 394, 307 and 411 IPC.
Whether the High Court complied with the requirement to record reasons when refusing leave to appeal against an acquittal.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 394, s. 411

Subjects

acquittalappeal against acquittalevidence assessmentrecovery of stolen propertyprocedural fairnessreasons for judgmentIPC 394IPC 307IPC 411criminal law

Judgment

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 552

A STATE OF U.P.
v.
AJAI KUMAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 7, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860- ss. 394, 307 and 411 - Prosecution
under - Allegation of looting currency notes """'. Victims
c .sustaining injury - Reco.itery of part thereof from the accused
- RecOVf!Jred, notes- bearing stamp of the Bank from which
withdrawn:- Acquittal by trial court - High Court confirming
acq.uittal on sole ground that recovery af!d arrest of the
accused was doubtful - On appeal, held: The ground relied
on by High Court is not sustainable - Other vital aspects were
D lost sight of...:. Matter remitted to High Court for reconsideration.
Responde.nt-accused was prosecuted. ulss.; 394, 307
and 411 IPG. Prosecution case· was that w.hile PW-1
(in-formant) was going with PW2, after withdrawing money
E from Bank, the appellant-accused alongwith three others
snatched away the money after firing shots from a pistol.
PWs 1 and 2 siiffered injuries. Part of the currency notes
which were recovered from the a~cused persons, bore
stamp of the Bank Befor~ conciusion of the trial, two of
F the accused died and one absconded. 'Trial court
acquitted the appellant. High Court dismissed the ·appeal
of the State on the ground that arrest and recovery was
doubtful as there was contradiction with regard to the date
of arrest in view of a telegram sent by a relative. Hence
G the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
Court, the Court
HELD: 1. High Court's conclusion is clearly
H 552
'r-
STATE OF U.P. v. AJAI KUMAR [PASAYAT, J.] 553

_...._
presumptuous. The fact taken into consideration by the A
High Court could not have been a ground to hold that the
prosecution version was unacceptable and the trial Court
had rightly directed acquittal. The impugned order goes
to show that the only ground on which the High Court
found that there .was no scope for interference was the B,
telegram sent by a relative. Various other factors which
throw light on the controversy have not been considered
in the proper perspective by the High Court. The effect of
the evidence of the two victims and the recovery of part
of the recovered amount has been completely lost sight c
of. It is to be noted that contrary to what the trial Court
ctnd the High Court noted, the seized recovery notes
clearly show the stamp of the Bank from where the money
was withdrawn. The relevance of this factor has been
completely lost sight of by the trial Court and the High
D'
Court. [Paras 6 and 8] [557-E, G; 558-A, B]

... "' CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 277 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and order dated 4.9.2006 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in G.A. No. 58/2003. E

S.G. Hussain, Manoj K Mishra and Anil Kumar Jha for the
Appellant.
K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent.
. ~ F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the
G
., )
appeal filed by the appellant-State questioning correctness of
the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Originally, three
persons apart from respondents were arrayed as accused
persons. Two of them expired before trial was concluded and
one had absconded and could not be arrested.
H,
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A Four persons faced trial for offences punishable under
Sections 394, 307, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
the 'IPC'). The allegation was that on 15.3.1994 while the
informant alongwith one Sushil Kumar, son of the owner Shri
. Gopal was going towards the shop after withdrawing
B Rs.1,25,000/- from the State Bank of India, the accused persons
forcibly snatched away the money after firing shots from the
pistols held by them. The informant and aforesaid Sushi! Kumar
suffered injuries and were taken to hospital for treatment. The l
. first information report was lodged and investigation was
c undertaken and part of the money was recovered from the
accused persons. Several witnesses were examined to further
.the prosecution version. ·
· PWs 1 and 2 i.e. Bhagwat Narain and Sushil Kumar were
··stated to have sustained injuries in the incident. The trial Court
D directed acquittal primarily on the ground that the witnesses
could not say definitely as regards the numbers on currency
notes which were stated to have been withdrawn from the bank
and to have been robbed by the accused persons. This was -;. •
highlighted to show the fallacy of the conclusions to dir~ct
E acquittal.
Several other factors were also indicated questioning
correctness of the decision. Appeal was filed with leave of the
High Court and same was dismissed with the following
observations:
F
".. We have perused the judgment. A perusal of which would
indicate that Prem Narayan the relative of Chandesh Ravat
(dead) has made a telegram on 17.3.1994 to the Senior
Superintendent of Police concerned to the effect that .
Chandesh Ravat was arrested by the police of Mahurani
G
from his house and the arrest has shown by the police is
20.3.1994, therefore, the arrest as well as the recovery
becomes doubtful.
In above view of the matter no interference in the order of
H acquittal is warranted.
STATE OF U.P. v. AJAI KUMAR [PASAYAT, J.] 555

The leave to appeal is hereby rejected." A
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High
Court has not indicated the basis for coming to the conclusion
that the trial Court was right. In fact there was no analysis of the
evidence of the victims who had categorically implicated the
accused persons and had also described in detail the respective B
role played by each.
l 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submitted that the order of acquittal was reinforced by the order
of dismissal of the appeal by the impugned order and no c
interference is therefore called for.
5. While dealing with leave to appeal against acquittal,
this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal (2004 (5) SCC
573) inter-alia observed as under:
D
"3. We have carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel appearing on either side. This Court in
State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004 95) SCC 568)
has while reiterating the view expressed in the earlier cases
for the past two decades emphasised the necessity, duty
and obligation of the High Court to record reasons in E
disposing of such cases. The hallmark of a judgment/order
and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to
disclose the reasons for its decision and giving of reasons
has been always insisted upon as one of the fundamentals
of sound administration justice-delivery system, to make F
known that there had been proper and due application of
mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential
requisite of principles of natural justice. The fact that the
entertaining of an appeal at the instance of the State
against an order of acquittal for an effect1ve consideration G
of the same on merits is made subject to the preliminary
exercise of obtaining of leave to appeal from the High
Court, is no reason to consider it as an appeal of any
inferior quality or grade, when it has been specifically and

~
statutorily provided for, or sufficient to obviate and dispense H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A with the obvious necessity to record reasons. Any judicial
power has to be judiciously exercised and the mere fact
that discretion is vested with the court/forum to exercise
the same either way does not constitute any licence to
· exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to
B be conveyed by the well-known saying: "varying according
to the Chancellor's foot". Arbitrariness has been always
held to be the anathema of judicial exercise of any power,
all the more so when such orders are amenable to
challenge further before higher forums. The State does
c not in pursuing or conducting a criminal case or an appeal
espouse any right of its own but really vindicates the cause
of society at large, to prevent recurrence as well as punish
offences and offenders respectively, in order to preserve
orderlines~ in society and avert anarchy, by upholding the
rule of law. The provision for seeking leave to appeal is in
D
order to ensure that no frivolous appeals are filed against
orders of acquittal, as a matter of course, but that does
not enable the High Court to mechanically refuse to grant
leave by mere cryptic or readymade observations, as in
·this case ("the court does not find any error''), with no
E further, on the face of it, indication of any application of
mind whatsoever. All the more so, when the orders of the
High Court are amenable to further challenge before this
Court. Such ritualistic observations and summary disposal
which has the effect of, at times, and as in this case,
F foreclosing statutory right of appeal, though a regulated
one, cannot be said to be a proper and judicial manner
disposing of judiciously the claim before courts. The giving
of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial
and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which
G is the only indication to know about the manner and quality
of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court
concerned had really applied its mind. All the more so,
when refusal of leave to appeal has the effect of foreclosing
once and for all a scope for scrutiny of the judgment of the
H trial court even at the instance and hands of the first
~.
STATE OF U.P. v. AJAI KUMAR [PASAYAT, J.] 557

appellate court. The need for recording reasons for the A
conclusion arrived at by the High Court, to refuse to grant
leave to appeal, in our view, has nothing to do with the fact
that the appeal envisaged under Section 378 Cr.P.C is
conditioned upon the seeking for and obtaining of the
leave from the court. This Court has reQeatedly laid down B
that as the first aQQellate court the High Court, even while
dealing with an aQQeal against acguittal, was also entitled,
and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be
reaQQreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing
to interfere only the court should find an absolute c
assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on
record and not merely because the High Court could take
one more QOssible or a different view only. ExceQt the
above, where the matter of the extent and deQth of
consideration of the aQQeal is concerned, no distinctions
D
or differences in agQroach are envisaged in dealing with
an aggeal as such merely because one was against
conviction or the other against an acguittal."
(Underlined for emphasis)
6. In view of the fact .that the High Court's conclusion is E
clearly presumptuous and the mere claim that a telegram was
sent by a relative of Chandesh Ravat the deceased- accused,
same could not have been a ground to hold that the prosecution
version was unacceptable and the trial Court had rightly directed
acquittal. F
7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submitted that not only on the ground of a telegram but also on
other grounds, the High Court upheld the view of the trial Court.
8. A bare reading of the.impugned order which is G
reproduced above goes to show that the only ground on which
the High Court found that there was no scope for interference
was the telegram sent by a relative. Various other factors which
throw light on the controversy have not been considered in the

~
proper perspective by the High Court. The effect of the evidence H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R.

A of the two victims and the recovery of part of the recovered
amount has been completely lost sight of. It is to be noted that
contrary to what the trial Court and the High Court noted, the
seized recovery notes clearly show the stamp of the bank from
where the money was withdrawn. The relevance of this factor
B has been completely lost sight of by the trial Court and the High
Court.
9. That being so, we set aside the impugned order of the
High Court and remit the matter to it for consideration in
accordance with law.
c
10. The appeal is allowed.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.