DATE: 27/02/2025
BENCH: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
FACTS:
The appellant, the brother of the deceased and the original first informant, has challenged the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No. 207 of 2013, dated 22nd August 2013. The High Court had declined to grant leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case where the State had sought to challenge the acquittal of the accused. Although the appeal was initially filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal, the State chose not to contest the High Court’s decision. Consequently, the appellant has approached this Court to challenge the refusal of leave to appeal.
The case pertains to an incident that occurred on 2nd April 2011, the day India won the Cricket World Cup against Sri Lanka. The respondent, the husband of the deceased, allegedly fired celebratory shots in the air using his licensed pistol after India's victory. Subsequently, he is accused of firing a shot at his wife, resulting in her death. Their fifteen-year-old son was an eyewitness to the incident. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent of the charge of murder, following which the State appealed against the acquittal before the High Court. However, the High Court declined to grant leave to appeal, leading the appellant to seek redress before this Court.
ISSUES:
The main issue in this case is the decision of the High Court not to grant leave on application made by the appellant and acquittal of the respondent.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Court grants leave to appeal and remits the matter to the High Court for reconsideration of the criminal appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. The High Court is directed to decide the appeal on its merits, uninfluenced by the present order. Additionally, the original first informant (brother of the deceased) is permitted to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, which may be clubbed with the State’s appeal and heard together.
The Court based its decision on the fundamental principle of judicial review and the doctrine of human fallibility, emphasizing that judges, being human, are prone to errors. Citing Sita Ram v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that a single right of appeal is an essential safeguard against wrongful deprivation of life and liberty. While the case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, the High Court, at the stage of granting leave, was expected to prima facie assess the merits of the case rather than conduct an in-depth review. The Court found the High Court’s reasoning in declining leave unconvincing, particularly given the significance of the evidence, including the testimony of the deceased’s son, who had turned hostile.
Further, the Court recognized that every crime is an offence against society, and the State has a duty to ensure justice is served. While the High Court justified its decision by stating that the Trial Court's reasoning was not perverse, the Supreme Court opined that leave to appeal should not have been denied solely on this ground. Instead, the High Court should have allowed the appeal to proceed for a full hearing on its merits. Accordingly, to ensure procedural fairness and uphold the interests of justice, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed a fresh consideration of the appeal.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of ensuring a fair and comprehensive review of acquittal cases, particularly when circumstantial evidence plays a crucial role. By granting leave to appeal and remitting the matter back to the High Court, the Court reinforced the principle that judicial errors can occur and that appellate review serves as a safeguard against potential miscarriages of justice. The reliance on Sita Ram v. State of U.P. highlights the judiciary’s recognition that a single right of appeal is integral to maintaining fairness and upholding the rule of law. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s refusal to grant leave problematic, especially considering the presence of material evidence, such as the testimony of the deceased’s son, even though he later turned hostile. The decision reaffirms that at the stage of granting leave, the court should conduct a preliminary examination rather than a detailed review, ensuring that cases with arguable merit are given due consideration.
Furthermore, the ruling reflects the Court’s broader perspective on criminal justice, emphasizing that crimes are not just offenses against individuals but against society as a whole. The Supreme Court’s direction to allow the first informant to file an appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC recognizes the rights of victims’ families in seeking justice, aligning with the evolving jurisprudence on victims' rights in criminal trials. The judgment also underscores the responsibility of appellate courts to prevent premature dismissals of potentially valid appeals. By mandating a fresh consideration of the case, the Court ensures that due process is followed and that the acquittal is subjected to a fair and thorough appellate review. This approach strengthens public confidence in the judicial system and reinforces the principle that the interests of justice should not be curtailed by procedural technicalities.
info@adhwaitha.com
