Summary
The brother of the deceased (the first informant) challenged a Bombay High Court order refusing the State leave under Section 378(3) CrPC to appeal against the acquittal of the deceased's husband on a charge of murdering her by gunshot. The Court held that at the leave stage the High Court must examine whether a prima facie case or arguable points exist, not whether the acquittal is perverse, and finding the High Court's reasons unconvincing, granted leave and remitted the acquittal appeal for decision on merits, also permitting the informant to file a victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC to be heard together with it.
Issues
- What parameters govern the High Court's decision on an application for leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 378(3) CrPC.
- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing leave on the ground that it noticed no perversity in the trial court's reasoning in a case resting on circumstantial evidence.
Provisions considered
- Section 378(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973No State appeal against acquittal can be entertained without the High Court's leave. In deciding leave the High Court must apply its mind to whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points are raised, not to whether the acquittal would ultimately be set aside; it should not enter into minute details of the evidence and refuse leave merely because the acquittal is not perverse. Where the material calls for deeper scrutiny or reappreciation of evidence, leave must be granted and the appeal decided on merits. (¶¶ 1, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Section 372, proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court permitted the first informant, if he so intends, to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372, to be clubbed and heard with the State's appeal. (¶ 16)
Held
- The approach to an application for leave under Section 378(3) CrPC is settled by State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar: the High Court must consider whether a prima facie case or arguable points exist, not whether the acquittal would be set aside; it cannot refuse leave after a minute examination of the evidence on the ground that the acquittal is not perverse, though it may refuse leave with reasons after considering the material. If arguable points are raised or the record calls for deeper scrutiny and reappreciation of evidence, leave must be granted. (¶¶ 7, 12)
- The principle that a single right of appeal is a universal requirement rooted in human fallibility, though stated in the context of an accused's appeal, informs the State's appeal against acquittal as well, since every crime is an offence against society and the State has a duty to take appropriate steps when an offence is committed. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Although the case rested on circumstantial evidence and the deceased's 15-year-old son had turned hostile, the Court was prima facie not convinced by the High Court's reasons for refusing leave, which were essentially that no perversity appeared in the trial court's reasoning. The High Court should at least have granted leave and decided the acquittal appeal on its merits. The Court left open whether the first informant could himself question the order refusing leave, since the State had not appealed. (¶¶ 2, 10, 11, 13)
- Leave to appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the High Court to decide the criminal appeal on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observation of the Supreme Court; the first informant was permitted to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, to be clubbed and heard with the State's appeal. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
Result
Appeal disposed of: leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC granted; matter remitted to the High Court for registration and decision of the State's acquittal appeal on merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the Court's observations; the first informant permitted to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, to be clubbed and heard with the State's appeal; pending applications disposed of.