Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s acquittal was unsound and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, while affirming that private parties may invoke Article 136.

Summary

The case involved six accused persons charged under IPC sections 302, 149 and 148 for the murder of four individuals. The trial court convicted four of the accused and sentenced them to death. The Allahabad High Court, however, acquitted the accused and dismissed the State's appeal. The complainant (informant) and the State filed special leave petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reasoning was confused, based on surmise, and that it had erroneously discarded the testimony of eyewitnesses. It also clarified that a private party has locus standi to invoke Article 136 and that the Court’s plenary power is not limited to the State. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s acquittal and remitted the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing in accordance with law.

Issues considered

The complainant, a private party, has locus standi to invoke Article 136 of the Constitution to challenge a High Court acquittal.
Whether the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence, particularly the eyewitness testimony, in acquitting the accused.
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court’s order of acquittal.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 366
Constitution of Indias. 136
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302

Subjects

murdercriminal appealdeath penaltylocus standiArticle 136witness testimonyacquittalIPC 302IPC 148IPC 149special leave petition

Judgment

{2008] 16 S.C.R. 1013

RAMA KANT VERMA A
-+ v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 934-939 of 2001)

DECEMBER '2, 2008
B
·.[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB.
ALAM, JJ.]
,. ·-{
PENAL CODE, 1860:
c
ss. 3021149 and 148 - Four persons stated to have been
killed by six accused - Trial Court convicting and sentencing
four of the accused to death - Acquittal by High Court -
Appeals by complainant and State - Held - Conclusions
arrived at by High Court are utterly confusing and based on D
surmises and conjectures - Presence of witnesses has been
erroneously discarded - Matter remittf;d to High Court for
..., disposal afresh in accordance with Jaw.
~

CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
E
Article 136 - Locus standi of complainant to file appeal
- Held: Exercise of power by the Court is not circumscribed
by any limitation as to who may invoke it.

Respondents Nos.2 to 5 along with two others were
F
prosecuted u/ss.3021149 and 148 IPC on the allegations
,. i that they caused death of four persons by causing
injuries to them by 'gandasa', 'banka' etc. at about 2.30
a.m. in the night while the victims were asleep. The
victims died on the spot. The incident was stated to have
been witnessed by PW1 and PW2. On the alarm raised G
by them, their father an.d some other villagers reached
~ there and the accused fled away. The accused were
identified by the witnesses in the torch light and the
electr!c light. The cause of the incident was stated to be
1013 H
r
I
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A prior enmity between the two sides owing to a litigation
with regard to a land dispute. The trial court convicted
respondents 2 to 5 of the offences ·charged and
sentenced them to death. Two of the accused were
acquitted. The convicts filed appeal. The State too
B appealed against order of acquittal of two _of the accused.
Reference ·was alscf made by the trial court in terms of
s.366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High
Court allowed the appeal of the accused and acquitted
them, dismissed the appeal of the State and rejected the r•
c reference. Aggrieved, the complainant and the State filed ~
I
the appeals. t,--

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELO: 1. A bare perusal of .the judgment of the High
D Court shows that the conclusions arrived at by it are
utterly confusing and based on surmises and
conjectures. The witnesses could not have stated the
scenario with surgical precision .. The presence of the
witnesses has been erroneous.ly discarded~ In the
l•
E circumstances, the. matter is remitted to the High Court ;

.for hearing the cases afresh and disposing them of in
accordan.ce with law. [Paras 6,7,9 and 10] (1020-A; 1022-
F; 1024-D; 1025-G]

. State of AP. v. Kandagopa/udu 2005(13) SCC 116 and.
F B.I).· Channappa v. State of Kamataka 200G(12)SCC 57,
relied on. r
2. The stand of the accused-respondents fhat the
complainant has no locus standi to prefer any appeal is
G of no avail. The exercise of power under Article 136 of the
Constitution is not circumscribed by any limitation as to
who may invoke it: In any event the State has preferred
the appeal. [Para 9] [1024-D; 1025-A]

Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai & Ors. 2003(12) SCC 395,
H
RAMA KANT VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 1015
~

'
" ·-.l relied on. A

Case Law Reference:

2005 (13) sec 116 relied on para 7

2006 (12) sec s1 relied on para 8 B
2003 (12) sec 395 relied on para 9
Ai CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 934-939 of 2001.

From the Order and Judgment dated 21.12.2000 of the
c
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2000, Criminal Appeal
Nos. 14, 25, 26, 27, 28 of 2000 and Capital Sentence No. 1
of 2000.
D
WITH
_...,
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1202-1206 of 2001 .
...
S.R. Singh, p.s. Mishra, Manoj K. Mishra, V.K. Mishra, Rati
Gupta, Sanjay Visen, Fazail Khan, Anil Kumar Jha, Ajai Bhalla, E
..
Abhinav Jain, Tathagat Harshvardhan and Abha R. Sharma for·
the appearing parties. '

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals F
. i is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court, Lucknow Bench, directing acquittal of the respondents
2 to 5 who were found guilty of offences punishable under
Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Appellant was the G
informant in the case. The aforesaid accused respondents
4 were found guilty of offences punishable under Section 302
read with Section 149 IPC and 148 IPC and each of them was
sentenced to be hanged separately till death. Since
confirmation of the death sentence was required, reference was H
1016 SUPREME COURT ~EPORTS [2008] 1e S.C.R. I

~
,,
A . made in terms of Section 366 of the Code of Criminal ~--
)

· Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'CrP.C.'). The convicted accused. ~

preferred appeals. The present appellant filed a revision
against the judgment and order of acquittal in respect of two
persons namely Ram Kripal Verma and Ram Tilak Verr:na. The
B High Court allowed the appeal filed by the convicted appellants,
while dismissing the revision petition filed by the informant and
rejected the reference.
2. The. prosecution version as unfolded during the trial is
as follows:
c
An F.1.R. was lodged at 6.30A.M. on 11.11.94 at Police
Station, Tarun by_Rama Kant (P.W. 1) With the allegation that
his cousin Girish Varma was sleeping in the room of the rube-
well alongwith him. His grandfather Sukhai a11d his unCle Ram
D Naresh were sleeping under the Chhappar near the tube-well.
His brother Umakant Varma (PW2) was sleeping inside the
. Saria for looking after ,the ·cattle. Sukhai, and Ram Naresh
raised alarm and asked for help, at which Ramakant ~longwith
Girish came out of the tube-well room after opening its door,
E and saw that Krishna Murari and Kashi Ram by means of
Gandasa and Raghava Ram and Ram Milan by means of.
Banka, and 2-3 others, who had muffled/covered their faces by
means of cloth were causing injuries to Sukhai and Ram
Naresh. Ram Dev, another uncle of the informa·nt, was sleeping
south of the tube-well under the Chhappar. Ramakant, Umakant
F and Girish tried . to rescue the victims,·· but the assailants
attacked Girish and Ram Dev also by means of their weapons.
Ramakant, Uma Kant escaped an.cl ran into the field of
Sugarcane and. als.o raised alarm. It_ was night time 2.30 AM.
on 11 .11.1994 (In between the hight of 10th and 11th j

G. November, 1984). .Due t.o cries and alarm raised by 'them, Ram ~

'
Tej, father ofinformant, and several Villagers came with lathis
and torches. l"he assailants rah away towards south. It was
I
further alleged that the four appellants were se·en and identified t:
by Ramakant (PW I) Uma Kant (PW 2), Ram Tej and villagers
H in the light of the torches and in the electricity light. It was also
RAMA KANT VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 1017
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

-1 alleged that litigation in respect of land had. been going on in A
between the victims and appellant Krishna MurarL The cattle
of Krishna Murari were sent to the house· of Ram Kripal ten
days prior to the occurrence and he had also sent his family
out of the village to his wife's house in another village. Rama
Kant further alleged that in the morning Daljeet Singh (F>W3), 8
Jaising Mau and Hari Om (PW4) told him that on 10.11.94 at
... -'{ 9.00 AM. the appellants were seen by them, taking non-
vegetarian food alongwith Ram rilak and Ram Kripal at the
shop of Ram Kripal. Ramakant therefore, alleged his suspicion
against Ram Kripal and Ram Tilak as the persons who were c
instrumental in the commission of this crime conspiring with the
appellants. All the four victims had died on the spot. Leaving ·
them there as such on the spot, he lodged the. written report
(Ext.Ka.I) at the Police Station where its check report
(Ex.Ka.16) and G.D.entry(Ex.Ka.17) was prepared by Ram D
Harsh Yadava (PW12) head constable and thus a case crime
No.156 of 94· was registered. Investigation was given to the
~
... Station Officer of the P .S. Sudhakar (PW 10) who, at the time
of registering of the case, was busy in his duty at Ayodhya in
"Chaulah Kosi Parikarima" and who on receiving information
E
of this case reached PS Tarun, and obtained· copy of the FIR
and other relevant papers from the PS and reached the spot
of occurrence in village Bearauli at about 9.00 AM. and found
other police personnel including Riaz Khan of P.S, Haiderganj,
and Sibte Haider SSI (PW13) of PS Tarun. Me got the inquest
reports of the dead Sukhai and Ram Naresh prepared through F
~ -.(
Riaz Khan. S.I. Riaz Khan died before the evidence and the
inquest reports and connected papers Ext.Ka 25 to Ext.Ka 36
were proved by Ram Narain Pandey (PW 14) and also got the
inquest reports in respect of deceased Ram Dev and Girish
prepared through PW 13 Sibte Haider S.I. (Ex.Ka 17; 18 and G
Ka.20 to 24) under his supervision and direction. He sent the
~ dead bodies for post mortem examination to Faizabad through
constables at about 12.15 P.M. on that very day i.e.(11.11.1994. ·

Sudhakar Pandey 1.0. (P.W.10) took down the statements H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.GJl.

A· of Rama Kant Derma (PWI), Manik Lal Varm~ (PW7) and
M~nna Lal (PW 8). He inspected the place of occurrence at the
instance of the.witnesses of fact and prepared the map of the
site, (ExKa 6) ..-He found the dead body bf Sukhai on a Cot and
founq··Kathri and Chadar and Razai thereon stained with the
B · blood·of the·deceased and.found blood stained on the wall and
prepared its recovery·memd"(ExKa.7) and sealed these ·articles
with a material taken from the wall as well: Similarly, the dead
body of Ram Naresh was ·on a cot·with Angocha, Kathri,
Chadar, another coloured chadar and one bush·shirt stained
c with blood. There. were stains of blood on the wall and the
memo. (Ex Ka8) thereof was also prepared and articles with
blood on wall$ were sealed separately. In the same manner,
dead body of Ramdev was found on the Cot. with kathri, chadar,
banyan, gamchha stained with blood, and blood was found on ·
D the ground near.the Cot. These articles were sealed and blood
stained and .$ample earth was taken and sealed separately and
memo (Ex.Ka9) was prepared by him. The bedding consisting
of Kathri, Rajai and two chadars and Tehmad of deceased
Girish were found on·the cot which was also· stained with blood.
E The dead body,ofGirish was found in a pit (gaddha) where his
blood had also· fa.lien down. Blood stained and sample earth
were taken into possession and·were sealed·separately by the
1.0. and memo·of this and other .articles was prepared (Ex.Ka
10). Then statements of witnesses were taken. down. He
arrested Kashiram; Raghava Ram and Ram Tilak on the same
F day. He was transferred from Tarun P.S, on 13.11.94. The
investigation -then was conducted by his successor Ashutosh
Sharma (PW 11),who arrested Ram Milan and recorded the
statements.of remaining witnesses·and then submitted charge
sheet (Fa;Ka15) against the six named persons.
G ' '

Post·mortem on the dead bodies .was conducted by Dr.
0. P .Khattri .(P.W·9). . · ·

After investigation charge sheet was filed. As all the six
H . persons.. alleged. false implication, trial was held. Accused
RAMA KANT V~l'MA \.'.STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 1019
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

_. i;iel'Sons were examined by one head constable Nahar Singh A
of the CB CID Dog squad Head Quarter, Lucknow. Fourteen
witnesses were examined to further the prosecution versions.
Rcirni:ikant (PW1), Umakant (PW2), Daljeet Singh (PW 3), Hari
Om (PW4), Amar Jeet Singh (PW5), Mithai Lal (PW 6) Manik
Ram Varma (PW?) and Munna Lal (PW8) were stated to be 8
eye witnesses. The trial court believed prosecution versions and
disbelieved the defence plea _and convicted.and sentenced the
.J i
accused persons as aforesaid. In appeal the High Court
directed acquittal.

3. Learned ca,yn§el fer the appellants submitted that the c
concl_l:J.§iQn~ atthe High Court are utterly fallacious and mostly
lnu~@d on surmises and conjectures. It has not even analysed
the factual conclusions.

4. In response, learn~d oounsel for the acquitted accused D
persons sub.rn.i.t.ted that analysis have been made from the
~yid~nce of PWs 1 & 2 by the High Court to point out the
infirmities. Identification was not possible, and, therefore, the
presence as claimed is doubtful. So the High Court is correct
in its conclusions. Even if the reasons are not elaborate, the E
evidence of PWs 1 & 2 has to be read together and a
reasonable doubt is raised about the credibility of these
witnesses. There are m~mifest suppressions. Vital factors like
absence of H9ht in the chappars and impmbability of any light
~rnanating from the bulbs hanging on the Neem Tree have been .
F
taken note of. The room and the chappars are at the di3tance
> 1
of~ 00 metres and, therefore, the possibility by identification was
rightly disbelieved. Except one dead body, found in the pit,
others were found in lots. Since the accused persons are
known co-villagers, there had obvious reasons to hide their
identity. There were omissions in the inquest report and there G
was also delay in sending the FIR and the inquest report. Since
~
all relevant aspects have been considered, in an appeal of
acquittal, so far as the appellants are concerned, no
interference is called for.
H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A 5. In the State's appeal §imilar stand to that of the informant
have been taken. ~
6. A bare perusal of the High Court's O.f~§f§ §hQW~ that
the conclusions of the High Court are utterly confµ§ing ~m:f
based on surmises.and conjectures. A few instances about the
8 absurd conclusions are as follows:

· : ;,A re.ad Ing of the post mortem examination report )'- . .
._ind.lcates that the four penmns were done to death without ·
any hindrance or interference ~nd without any person
c resisting forcefully and without raising ~my 9l§rfll.
)()()( xxx xxx
i

It was alleged in the FIR that the miscreants were
seen and identified by Ramakant, Umakant, Ram Tej and
D. "villagers" in the light of electricity and torches.

PW1 Ramakant says that he had a torch with him.
He is unable to say as to why he did not show it to the 1.0.
or Why its memo was not prepared or why the 1.0. was not
E told about it.

xxx xxx
It is stated that it was dark iri th~ fj§Jcj. It was not
. mentioned in the FIR that any of these penH~fl$ h~g any
·F torch with them at that crucial time. The dispute of pr~s~n~
of electricity light would have been done away with if tl'l@ ~ <

torches had been with them. But PW 2 says that there wa§
· no other source of light there except the bulbs but PW 1
says that he had a torch; and was unable to say whether
G PW2 had it or not. This shows that none of. them was even
present on the spot. The story about torch is quite false, .

Xxx xxx xxx
There was no mention in the FIR that there were two
H
RAMA KANT VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 1021
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

bulbs or these were hanging on the two trees. A
Conspicuously the entire story, at all places, is silent about
the miscreants having any torch etc.

Xxx xxx xxx
According to PW 2 Umakant and PW1 · Ramakant B
none of the male family members. were sleeping in the
house in the village and al! the male members of the family,
were ·sleeping at the tube-well. Although there is nothing·.
very much abnormal in it, but under the circumstances this ,
does not seem to be the truth. The presence of Ramakant, C
and Umakant on the spot is highly doubtful and rather false.
PW 2 says that all the appellants had open faces, whereas ·
the other three persons had muffled their faces by cloth and
had come to commit the crime taking advantage of night ·
.and without raising any alarm or noise. And that their D
houses are next to their house and some are within a
J. radius of 100 metres. This all appears to be unbelievable
in view of the above and is thus false.
Xxx xxx xxx E
FIR number and distance of P.S. from the place of
occurr-ence which find mention in the F.l.R., have not been
mentioned in the four inquest reports prepared by the two
police officers under the supervision and direction of the
1.0. F

Xxx xxx xxx
Even there is no GD on record of the arrival of the
10 to the PS for taking the papers, and of departure for G
'·the spot on 11.11.1994.

Xxx xxx xxx
Though normally these things do not matter much
and in normal cases prosecution cannot be made to suffer H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A due to faults and latches on. the part of investigating 1;1g~n~y -~-
or other police officials. But in the facts and special
circumstances of this case, these become material.

Xxx xxx xxx '-
B The Doctor (PW 9) conducted post mortem of the
dead bodies on 12.11.1994 w.e.f. 11 AM and last was
}-- ...
.started at 3PM if the dead bodies had been received
earlier then the post mortem could have been_ conducted
earlier in the morning, or cguld have been conducted the
c same day. The doctor was al§~ nP~ categorical in his
statement about the FIR The tim@ pf .~.eath was .
approximate and it could not definitely P@ §.ai~ !het !h~ ,,
occurrence took place at 2.30 AM. These all faQt§ ~f~ fatal
to the case of prosecution and indicate that FIR wa~
D prepared some time later on and was ante timed.

Xxx xxx xxx \.
....
After arrival of the police, efforts were made to find
out the culprits and for that purpose help of the dog squad
E was also taken. And when dog squ;::id also failed then the
case was made out naming those with whom there was
enmity, and that must have been done on SIJ§picion. The
FIR was ante-timed."
7. The witnesses could not have stated the scenario with
F
surgical precision. In State of A.P. v. Kandagopaludu [2005(13)
sec 116] it was inter alia observed as follows: r··
"We have been taken through the evidence of PWs
1, 2 and 3 before whom extra-judicial confession has been
G made by the accused. The testimony of PWs 1, 2 and 3
is consistent. The learned counsel for the respondent
pointed out that in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 there is 1"--
contradiction that the accused did not state before them
that he came seeking protection from them. In our view,
this discrepancy cannot pe termed as a contradiction which
H
RAMA KANT VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 1023
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

f would be fatal to the prosecution case. Every discrepancy A
in the statement of a witness cannot be treated as fatal to
the prosecution case. A discrepancy which is not fatal to
the prosecution does not create any infirmity. The incident
haq taken place on 24-1-1992 and PW 2 was examined
on 22-1"."1Q96 after almost four years. Human memories B
an~ apt to plur with the passage of time. After lapse of
. -'
~
'
almost four years, it carmot be expected that a witness can
depose with mathematical precision."
8. In B.K. Channappa v. State of Kamataka [2006(12)
sec57] it was inter a/ia observed as follows: c
"We have independently scrutinised the evidence of the
material witnesses in the teeth of the rival contentions of
the parties. On reappraisal and scrutiny of the evidence
of the injured witnesses Shekharappa (PW 2), B.G.
D
Shivamurthaiah (PW 3) and B.G. Prakashaiah (PW 4),
they have fully established the case of the prosecution
§lga!n~t A'.'.f! A-3, A-17, A-19 and A-20, although there
·~
.,,
" were ~ert~!n gj§gr~pc;1n9i~~ in their testimony and in
cornpari:sQn lP th@ v@r§i9A~ of P'(V 6, PW 7 and PW 19,
the eyewitnesses, in regarg to the weapons of offence E
individually used by A~1, A~3. A-17, A-19 and A-20 for
inflicting injuries on the person of each of the injured
witnesses as also on the person of the deceased. The
discrepancies, as pointed out by the learned counsel for
the appellants, are minor and insignificant. The occurrence F
. i tpok place on 5-7-1995 and the witnesses were examined
in the court after about a gap of almost five years. The
evidence on record further shows that the injured witnesses
had been subjected to lengthy and searching cross-
examination and in sµch type of cross-examination, some G'
improvements, contradictions, and omissions are bound
to occur in their evidenc~. which cannot be treated as very
serious, vital and significant so as to disbelieve and
discard the substratum of the prosecution case. The
evidence of the injured witnesses and other eyewitnesses H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A has been rightly reappreciated and accepted by the High
Court and we find no cogent and sound reason to differ
from the well-reasoned judgment upholding the order of the
trial court. There is, therefore, no merit in the argument of
the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of
B the injured witnesses and other eyewitnesses shoulq pe
labelled as the evidence of th~ interested witnesses. On
the other hand, we find that the evidence of all the
eyewitnesses including injured persons is quite natural,
convincing and trustworthy. There is no material on record
from which an inference can be drawn that the material
c witnesses have implicated the appellants Karibasappa (A-
2), Halanaika (A-3), B.K. Manjunatha (A-17), B.K.
Parmeshwarappa (A-19) and B.K. Shivarajappa (A-20) in
a false case.
o 9. There is substance in the plea by learned counsel for
the appellant that the presence of the witnesses nas been
erroneously discarded. 1! ~as submittec;t by the respondents-
accused that the complainant has no locus standi to prefer any
appeal. In any event, State ha~ preferred appeal. In Ramakant
E Rai v. Madan Rai & Ors. [2003(12) SCC 395)it was inter alia
observed as follows:
"A doubt has been raised about the competence of a
private party as distinguished from the State, to invoke the
jurisdietion of this Court under Article 136 of the
F Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution')
against a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. We do
not see any substance in· the doubt. Appellate power
vested in this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
is· not to be confused with ordinary appellate power
G exercised by appellate courts and·appellate tribunals under
specific statutes. It is a plenary power, 'exercisable outside
the purview of ordinary law' to meet the pressing demands
of justice (See Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj
Singh (AIR 1954 SC 520). Article 136 of the Constitution
H neither confers on anyone the right to invoke the jurisdiction
I·

'
RAMA KANT VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 1025
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
----,..-
of this Court nor inhibits anyone from invoking the Court's A
1 jurisdiction. The power is vested in this Court but the right
to invoke the Court's jurisdiction is vested in no one. The
exercise of the power of this Court is not circumscribed
by any limitation as to who may invoke it. Where a
judgment of acquittal by the High Court has led to a serjous B
miscarriage of justice this Court cannot refrain from doing
its duty and abstain from interfering on the ground that a
_, "I private party and not the State has invoked the Court's
jurisdiction. We do not have slightest doubt that we can
entertain appeals against judgments of acquittal by the c
High Court at the instance of interested private parties
also. The circumstance that the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 (in short the "Code") does not provide for an appeal
to the High Court against an order of acquittal by a
subordiriate Court, at the instance of a private party, has
D
no relevance to the question of the power of this Court
µnder Article 136. We may mention that in Mohan Lal v.
-..\, Ajit Singh (1978 (3) SCC 279) this Court interfered with
.. a judgment of acquittal by the High Court at the instance
of a private party. An apprehension was expressed that if
E
appeals against judgments of acquittal at the instance of
private parties are permitted there may be a flood of
appeals. We do not share the apprehension. Appeals
under Article 136 of the Constitution are entertained by
special leave granted by this Court, whether it is the State
or a private party thatinvokes the jurisdiction of this Court, F
. ~ and special leave is not granted as a matter of course but
only for good and sufficient reasons, well established by
the practice of this Court.
10. In the circumstances, we deem it proper to remit the
G
rnatter to the High Court for hearing the cases afresh and
_.... dispose them of in accordancewith law.
11. The appeals are allowed.

R.P. Appeals allowed.