9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2483 - SC - Indian LawsAcquittal of accused - Held that - The High Court in a very mechanical way has stated that after a perusal of the evidence on record it found no reason to interfere with the decision of the trial court as the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and it has dismissed the appeal by passing a cryptic order. This Court is of the view that the High Court being the Appellate Court has to exercise its appellate jurisdiction keeping in view the serious nature of the charges levelled against the accused. The High Court has failed to exercise its appellate jurisdiction properly in the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. Hence the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside by this Court and the case is required to be remanded to the High Court to consider for grant of leave to file an appeal by the appellant as required under sub-Section (3) to Section 378 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter proceed in the matter For the reasons stated supra this appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The case is remanded to the High Court to hear the appellant with regard to grant of leave to file an appeal as the appellant is legal heir of the victim as defined under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law in the light of observations made in this order as expeditiously as possible.
Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of the appellant to file an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Requirement of obtaining leave under sub-Section (3) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. for filing an appeal. 3. High Court's failure to reappreciate the evidence on record. Detailed Analysis: 1. Locus Standi of the Appellant: The appellant, being the father of the deceased, filed an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the acquittal of the accused. The appellant argued that he falls within the definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. and thus has the locus standi to file the appeal. The Supreme Court agreed, stating, "There is no doubt that the appellant, being the father of the deceased, has locus standi to prefer an appeal before the High Court under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. as he falls within the definition of victim as defined under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C." 2. Requirement of Obtaining Leave: The appellant contended that he did not need to seek leave of the High Court under sub-Section (3) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. to maintain his appeal. However, the Supreme Court clarified that while the appellant has the right to prefer an appeal, this right is subject to obtaining leave from the High Court. The Court stated, "The right of questioning the correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal by preferring an appeal to the High Court is conferred upon the victim... under proviso to Section 372, but only after obtaining the leave of the High Court as required under sub-Section (3) to Section 378 of Cr.P.C." 3. High Court's Failure to Reappreciate Evidence: The appellant argued that the High Court dismissed the appeal without reappreciating the evidence on record. The Supreme Court found merit in this contention, noting that the High Court had dealt with the appeal "in a very cursory and casual manner" and had failed to exercise its appellate jurisdiction properly. The Supreme Court emphasized, "The High Court in a very mechanical way has stated that after a perusal of the evidence on record it found no reason to interfere with the decision of the trial court... The High Court has failed to exercise its appellate jurisdiction properly in the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court." Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and remanded the case back to the High Court. The High Court was directed to consider the grant of leave to file an appeal by the appellant and to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court. The Court concluded, "This appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The case is remanded to the High Court to hear the appellant with regard to grant of leave to file an appeal... and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law in the light of observations made in this order as expeditiously as possible."
|
