Summary
Leave to appeal against acquittal required consideration of a prima facie case or arguable points, rather than final determination of whether the acquittal should be reversed. The High Court’s reason for refusing leave conflicted with medical evidence of fracture and lacerations. Leave was granted, with directions to hear the State’s appeal and the pending cross-case appeal simultaneously. The complainant’s revision was also restored for fresh consideration.
Issues
- Whether refusal of leave to appeal against acquittal was sustainable on the medical record and in light of the pending cross-case appeal.
Provisions considered
- Section 378(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The leave stage required application of mind to whether a prima facie case or arguable points existed; it did not require deciding the ultimate merits of the acquittal appeal. (¶ 3–5)
Held
- Leave was not automatic in every case, but the relevant inquiry was whether a prima facie case or arguable points justified the appeal. The High Court’s stated medical basis for refusal was contrary to testimony and exhibits recording a tibial fracture and lacerated wounds. (¶ 4–5)
- The material made out a prima facie case for leave. The pending appeal from convictions in the cross-complaint arising from the same incident further supported granting leave and simultaneous consideration of both appeals. (¶ 5–8)
- The complainant’s revision had been rejected on the basis of the same refusal-of-leave order. Once that foundation was set aside, the revision also required fresh consideration on its own merits. (¶ 9–12)
Result
State’s appeal allowed; refusal of leave set aside and acquittal appeal directed to be taken on file and heard expeditiously with Criminal Appeal 849 of 2005. Complainant’s appeal allowed and revision remitted for fresh decision. Connected Criminal Appeals 798 and 800 of 2010 disposed of without further orders.