STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusPARAS RAM AND ORS.

                           [2008) 1 S.C.R. 6


A                STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                                   II.
                      PARAS RAM AND ORS.
                       (Crl. A. No. 1 of 2008)
                          JANUARY 3, 2008
B
         (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.)

         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S.378:

         Accused persons allegedly committed offences
c punishable u/ss. 436, 447 and 506 /PC - Acquitted by Trial
  Coult - Leave to file appeal - Grant of - Dismissed by High
  Coult without assigning any reasons - Correctness of- Held:
  Incorrect - On facts, trial Court did not perform its duties in
  appraising the evidence carefully before arriving at its
D conclusion acquitting accused - Under such circumstances,
  High Court ought to have granted leave, re-appreciated entire
  evidence as first Court of appeal and returned its finding
  objectively- High Court by refusing to grant leave to file appeal
  lost a close scrutiny of the order of acquittal - In the interest of
E justice, High Court ought to have set forth reasons indicative
  of application of its mind - More so, when its order is amenable
  to further challenge - Besides, reasons introduce clarity in an
  order and substitute subjectivity by objectivity - Absence of
  reasons has rendered the order of the High Court
F unsustainable - Leave to file appeal granted - Principles of           :--
  natural justice - Requirements of.
         Words and Phrases:
         'Inscrutable face of the sphinx' - Meaning of
G     The question which arose for.determination in this
  appeal before this Court was as to whether the High Court
  was right in dismissing the application to grant leave to
  appeal without assigning any reasons against the;!
  acquittal of accused persons.
H                             6
            STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. PARAS RAM                7
                           AND ORS.

              Partly allowing the appeal, the Court                   A
     ~

              HELD: 1.1 The trial Court was required to carefully
         appraise the entire evidence and then come to a
         conclusion. If the trial Court was at lapse in this regard
         the High Court was obliged to undertake such an exercise
         by entertaining the appeal. The trial Court on the facts of B
         this case did not perform its duties, as was enjoined c1n it
         by law. The High Court ought to have in such
-1       circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a first court
         of appeal, re-appreciated the entire evidence on the recofd
         independently and returned its findings objectively as c
         regards guilt or otherwise of the accused. It has failed to
         do so. (Para - 8) (11-A, B)
               1.2 The questions involved in this case were not
         trivial. The High Court has not given any reasons for D
         refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal, and
         seems to have been completely oblivious to the fact that
         by such refusal, a close scrutiny of the order of acquittal,
         by the appellate forum, has been lost once and for all.
         (Para - 8) (11-C)
                                                                       E
               1.3 Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest
         consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set
         forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative
         of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is
         amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of F
 _j      reasons has rendered the High Court order not
         sustainable. (Para - 8) (11-D, E)
              State of U.P v. Battan and Ors (2001) 10 SCC 607; State
              of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR (1982)
              SC 1215 and Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and G
              Ors. (1987) 2 sec 222 - relied on.
              Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) (1) All
              E.R. 1148 and Alexander Machinery (Dudley), Ltd. v.
              Crabtree (1974) LCR 120 - referred to.
                                                                      H
    8         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2008] 1 S.C.R.


A      1.4 Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The 1
  f3mphasis on recording reasons is that if the deci:sio'(1
  reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its
                                        •
  silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to
  perform their appellate function or exercise the· power of
B judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision.
  Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial
  system, reasons at lea~t sufficient to indicate an
  application of mind to the matter before Court. Another J.
  rationale is that the affected party can know why the
c decision has gone against him. One of the salutary
  requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for
  the order made. (Para - 9) (12-8, C, D)
          State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2004 (1) SCC 547 - relied
    on.
D
        2. The State is granted leave to file the appeal. The
  High Court shall entertain the appeal and after formal
  notice to the respondents hear the appeal and dispose of ~
  it in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any obser-
E vation made in the present appeal. (Para - 11) (12-F)
         CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1of2008
       From the final Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2006 of
  the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Crl. M.P. (M)
F No. 623/2006    ..
          J .S. Attri, Adv. for the Appellant.
          Dr. 1.8. Gaur, Adv. for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
          Dr. ARIJIT PASl>,.YAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
         2. Refusal to grant leave to question judgment of acquittal
  iri terms of Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
                                                                         "'
H 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is the subject matter of challenge in this
   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. PARAS RAM                       9
             AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]

appeal. According to the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh, /l·
the one line order "Dismissed" of the Himachal Pradesh High
Court without assigning reasons therefor does not meet the
requirement of law.
     3. Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused')
faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Bi
Sections 436, 447, 427, 147 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short 'IPC').
      4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant
Smt. Manjit Kaur is a resident of Village Abada Barana, Distt.       c
Una, H.P. She is a house wife. On 30.6.2003 at about 5.45 p.m.
she and her sister-in-law Nirmala Devi were watching television
in their house and their children were playing outside, while her
husband Gurdial Singh had gone to Kuthar to bring medicines.
In the meantime daughter of her sister-in-law aged about 13
                                                                     0
years named Poonam came there and told that some persons
were uprooting creepers from their field. On this they both came
out and saw that the above named accused were doing the
same and on seeing the complainant and her sister-in-law the
accused came towards the house of the complainant and
challenged them that they would set their house on fire. The         E
accused Balbir Singh, Baldev Singh, Jai Gopal and Radhey
Shayam were carrying 'Mashals' in their hands and with the help
of those Masha ls they lit their thatched house on fire from three
sides. When the complainant and her sister-in-law tried to take
out their articles from the house, the accused threatened them       F
to throw in the fire. On this, the complainant got frightened and
she along with her sister-in-law and children rushed towards
Kuthar Kalan while raising cries. On listening their cries Santosh
Kumari W/o Jog Raj and Yash Pal S/o Bihari Lal, both resident
of Kuthar Kalan, reached at the spot. Thereafter the complainant     G
went to Kuthar Kalan and told about this incident to her husband
who informed the fire brigade and police. The police reached
at the spot and recorded statement of complainant Ex.PW-1/A
under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short 'Cr.P.C.') upon which FIR Ex.PW-12/A was recorded              H
    10        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A against the accused. During investigation the police prepared
                                                                            'r
  the photographs of the spot and obtained demarcation of the
  land over which the house in question was situated. After
  completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and the
  accused persons faced trial. Thirteen persons were examined
B as witnesses. PWs. 1 and 4 apart from others were stated to
  be eye-witnesses. The High Court found that there was some
  delay in lodging the FIR and though large number of people
  were claimed to have gathered at the spot, the witnesses could
  not have seen the accused persons. The High Court also found
c that there was some dispute between the parties and, therefore,
  the prosecution version was suspect. Accordingly, the accused
  persons were acquitted.
         5. The appellant-State filed an application for grant of leave.
    High Court disposed of the application in the following manner:
D
         "Dismissed"
        6. According to learned counsel for the appellant-State it
  was imperative on the High Court to indicat-:~ reasons as to why
  the prayer for grant of leave was found untenable. In the absence
E of any such reasons the order of the High Court is indefensible.
  Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order.
         7. Section 378 (3) of the Code deals with the power of the
    High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal. Section 378 (1)
    and (3) of the Code reads as follows:
F
         "378(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)             )._
         and subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) and (5),
         the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public
         Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an
         original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court
G
         other than a High Court or an order of acquittal passed by
         the Court of Session in revision.
          (3) No appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
                                                                            ,
          shall be entertained except with the leave of the High
H         Court".
              STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. PARAS RAM                          11
                        AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]

      '{          8. The trial Court was required to carefully appraise the         A
           entire evidence and then come to a conclusion. If the trial Court
           was at lapse in this regard the High Court was obliged to
           undertake such an exercise by entertaining the appeal. The trial
           Court on the facts of this case did not perform its duties, as was
           enjoined on it by law. The High .Court ought to have in such             8
           circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a first court of
           appeal, re-appreciated the entire evidence on the record
           independently and returned its findings objectively as regards
           guilt or otherwise of the accused. It has failed to do so. The
           questions involved were not trivial. The High Court has not given        c
           any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against
           acquittal, and seems to have been completely oblivious to the
           fact that by such refusal, a close scrutiny of the order of acquittal,
           by the appellate forum, has been lost once and for all. The
           manner in which appeal against acquittal has been dealt with
                                                                                    D
           by the High Court leaves much to be desired. Reasons
           introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice,
'?/        the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever
           brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the
           more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge.
           The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not             E
           sustainable. Similar view was expressed in State of UP v.
           Battan and Ors (2001 (10) SCC 607). About two decades back
           in State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (AIR 1982
           SC 1215) the desirability of a speaking order while dealing with
           an application for grant of leave was highlighted. The                   F
  .J
           requirement of indicating reasons in such cases has been
           judicially recognized as imperative. The view was re-iterated in
           Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987 (2) SCC
           222). Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this
           Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any authority or         G
           Court, be it even the Highest Court in a State, oblivious to Article
           141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution').
                9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning
           M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1)
                                                                                    H
    12       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of ffle
  fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery
  (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed:
  "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons
  are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the
B controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived
  at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis
  on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the
  "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, renderfit
  virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate
c function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging
  the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable
  part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to
  indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court.
  Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the
  decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements
0
  of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in
  other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx"
  is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicicrl
  performance.
E         10. The aforesaid aspects were highlighted by this Court
    in State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2004 (1) SCC 547).
        11. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the impugned
  judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and is set aside.
  We grant leave to the State to file the appeal. The High Court
F shall entertain the appeal and after formal notice to t,he
  respondents hear the appeal and dispose of it in accordance
  with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the present
  appeal. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated.
G S.K.S.                                     Appeal partly allowed.

                                                                   r