Facts of the case
- On the basis of an FIR lodged by the complainant, the investigating agency laid a charge-sheet before the competent court against the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code.
- The Sessions Judge, by his judgment, acquitted the respondent of the charge on the foundation that there was no witness to the occurrence of the crime and further PW-2, the wife of the complainant, could not tell the exact abuses hurled at her by the accused respondent.
- In the application seeking leave to appeal, many a 2 Page 3 ground was urged challenging the judgment of acquittal.
- The Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned order, referred to the trial court judgment and opined that the trial court, after appreciation of the evidence on record, has opined that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as there was not adequate evidence to substantiate the charges against the respondent andHigh Court has declined to grant leave to the State.
- The learned counsel for the State urged that that it is obligatory on the part of the High Court to give reasons while dismissing the application for leave.
Judgment
The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that, “ The High Court has only stated that the trial court, after appreciation of the evidence, had found that the prosecution had failed to establish the offence against the respondent and, hence, the judgment of acquittal did not suffer from infirmity. We are afraid that such an order cannot be said to be a reasoned order.On the contrary, such an order is, irrefragably, cryptic and clearly shows non-application of mind.It needs no special emphasis to say that while dealing with an application for leave to appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the High Court to assign reasons.The order has to reflect proper application of mind and such reflection of application of mind has to be manifest from the order itself.”
The appeal was allowed, the order passed by the High Court was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court to pass a cogent and reasoned order relating to grant or refusal of leave.
BY: ANKIT RAJPUT