Date of the Judgment: 20 July 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 413
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and M R Shah, J.
Can a High Court dismiss an appeal against acquittal without properly evaluating the evidence? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case where the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed an appeal against acquittal by the trial court, without giving sufficient reasons. The Supreme Court has now directed the High Court to re-evaluate the case. This judgment clarifies the duty of the High Court when dealing with appeals against acquittal.
Case Background
The case originates from a Sessions Trial No 2125 of 2012 in Ghaziabad, where the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the second to sixth respondents on 14 August 2014. These respondents were accused of offences under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly), Section 304B (dowry death), and Section 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The original informant, the appellant, then filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application (Leave to Appeal No 351/2014) before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 14 August 2014 | Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, acquitted the second to sixth respondents in Sessions Trial No 2125 of 2012. |
| 24 September 2014 | The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the application for leave to appeal filed by the appellant. |
| 7 July 2015 | The High Court denied the State of Uttar Pradesh leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal by the trial court. |
| 17 October 2016 | Notice was issued in the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court after condoning the delay. |
| 20 July 2021 | The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the High Court for fresh determination. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the appellant’s application for leave to appeal, stating that the trial judge’s view was not perverse or unreasonable. The High Court reasoned that simply because another view of the evidence was possible, it did not warrant interference unless the trial judge’s view was not a reasonably possible one. The High Court concluded that the trial judge’s view was indeed a reasonably possible one, and therefore, dismissed the application.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, which deals with appeals in cases of acquittal. The Court emphasized that the High Court, when considering an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal, must scrutinize the evidence and findings to determine if leave should be granted. The court also referred to the precedents on this matter.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- Ms. Sonia Mathur, senior counsel for the appellant, argued that the High Court should have scrutinized the evidence and findings before deciding whether to grant leave to appeal against the acquittal.
- She contended that the High Court did not properly apply its mind to the evidence and findings of the trial court.
- She relied on Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh vs Giriraj Dubey to support her argument.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- Mr. Z U Khan, counsel for the second to sixth respondents, argued that there were concurrent findings of fact that led to the acquittal of the accused.
- He urged the court to consider the findings recorded by the trial court, emphasizing that the High Court’s decision was based on a possible view of the evidence.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: High Court failed to scrutinize evidence |
|
| Respondents’ Submission: Concurrent findings of fact support acquittal |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court had correctly applied the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal against an order of acquittal.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court correctly applied the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal against an order of acquittal? | The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not met the requirements under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The High Court failed to indicate an application of mind to the evidence and findings, and merely stated that the trial court’s view was a possible one. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on several precedents to emphasize the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal against an acquittal:
| Authority | Court | How it was used by the court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Madhya Pradesh vs Giriraj Dubey [(2013) 15 SCC 257] | Supreme Court of India | The Court extensively referred to this case, which had already discussed the precedents on the subject. |
| State of Maharashtra vs Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan [(1981) 4 SCC 129] | Supreme Court of India | This case was followed in State of Madhya Pradesh vs Giriraj Dubey and was cited to emphasize the need for a speaking order when dealing with an application for leave. |
| State of Orissa vs Dhaniram Luhar [(2004) 5 SCC 568] | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited for the principle that the High Court must provide reasons for refusing to grant leave to appeal against acquittal, and must re-appreciate the evidence if the trial court failed to do so. |
| State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal [(2004) 5 SCC 573] | Supreme Court of India | This case was followed in State of Madhya Pradesh vs Giriraj Dubey and was cited to emphasize the need for a speaking order when dealing with an application for leave. |
| State of U.P . vs Ajai Kumar [(2008) 3 SCC 351] | Supreme Court of India | This case was followed in State of Madhya Pradesh vs Giriraj Dubey and was cited to emphasize the need for a speaking order when dealing with an application for leave. |
| State of Maharashtra vs Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar [(2008) 9 SCC 475] | Supreme Court of India | This case was followed in State of Madhya Pradesh vs Giriraj Dubey and was cited to emphasize the need for a speaking order when dealing with an application for leave. |
| State of U.P . v. Battan [(2001) 10 SCC 607] | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited to support the view that reasons must be provided when refusing to grant leave to appeal. |
| Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh [(1987) 2 SCC 222] | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited to reiterate the requirement of indicating reasons in such cases. |
| Chaman Lal vs State of Himachal Pradesh [(2020) SCC Online SC 988] | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited as a recent precedent following the same principles. |
Judgment
| Submission | How the Court treated the submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court should have scrutinized the evidence | The Court agreed with the appellant, stating that the High Court failed to properly scrutinize the evidence and findings. |
| Respondents’ submission that there were concurrent findings of fact | The Court did not accept this argument as a sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal, emphasizing that the High Court must still apply its mind to the evidence. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on State of Madhya Pradesh vs Giriraj Dubey [(2013) 15 SCC 257]* to emphasize the need for the High Court to scrutinize evidence and findings before deciding on leave to appeal.
- The Court followed the principles laid down in State of Orissa vs Dhaniram Luhar [(2004) 5 SCC 568]* that the High Court must provide reasons for refusing to grant leave to appeal against acquittal.
- The Court reiterated that the High Court must indicate an application of mind to the evidence and findings, based on the principles laid down in State of Maharashtra vs Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan [(1981) 4 SCC 129]*, State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal [(2004) 5 SCC 573]*, State of U.P . vs Ajai Kumar [(2008) 3 SCC 351]*, and State of Maharashtra vs Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar [(2008) 9 SCC 475]*.
- The Court also relied on State of U.P . v. Battan [(2001) 10 SCC 607]* and Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh [(1987) 2 SCC 222]* to support the view that reasons must be provided when refusing to grant leave to appeal.
- The Court cited Chaman Lal vs State of Himachal Pradesh [(2020) SCC Online SC 988]* as a recent precedent following the same principles.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that the High Court fulfilled its duty to properly evaluate the evidence and findings before dismissing an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal. The Court emphasized the need for the High Court to provide reasons for its decision, indicating that it had applied its mind to the case. The Court found that the High Court had failed to do so, and thus, it was necessary to remand the case for fresh consideration.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Failure of High Court to scrutinize evidence | 40% |
| Need for the High Court to provide reasons for its decision | 30% |
| Importance of following precedents | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:
- The High Court must scrutinize the evidence and findings before deciding whether to grant leave to appeal against an acquittal.
- The High Court must provide reasons for its decision, indicating an application of mind to the evidence and findings.
- The High Court cannot simply state that the trial court’s view was a possible one, without further analysis.
- The High Court must follow the precedents set by the Supreme Court on the matter.
The Supreme Court stated, “In other words, 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.”
The Court also observed, “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, indicative of an application of its mind; all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge.”
The Court concluded, “For the above reasons, we are of the view that an order of remand would be warranted to the High Court.”
Key Takeaways
- The High Court must provide reasons for its decision when dealing with an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal.
- The High Court must scrutinize the evidence and findings of the trial court before deciding whether to grant leave to appeal.
- The High Court cannot simply state that the trial court’s view was a possible one; it must indicate an application of mind to the evidence and findings.
- This judgment reinforces the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to precedents set by the Supreme Court.
Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 24 September 2014. The case was remitted to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for fresh determination of Criminal Miscellaneous Application (Leave to Appeal No 351/2014).
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court must provide reasons for its decision, indicating an application of mind to the evidence and findings, when dealing with an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal. This case reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce any new legal principles, but emphasizes the importance of the High Court’s duty to properly scrutinize evidence and provide reasons for its decisions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Brijesh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh clarifies the obligations of the High Court when considering an appeal against an acquittal. The High Court cannot dismiss such appeals without properly evaluating the evidence and providing reasons for its decision. This judgment ensures that acquittals are not upheld without a thorough review by the appellate court, reinforcing the principles of justice and judicial accountability.