- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The State of Bihar filed a petition in the Patna High Court seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of 25 accused persons under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused had been tried for an alleged dacoity in which Ajab Lal Singh was murdered, and were charged under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident was alleged to have occurred around midnight between 5 and 6 June 1980 at Village Nandlal Patti (P.S. Amarpur, District Bhagalpur) in the house of Jawahar Lal Singh (PW 21), who lodged the FIR on 6 June 1980 at 8:45 a.m. from Bhagalpur Medical College Hospital while injured. At trial, multiple eyewitnesses claimed identification in lantern light and attributed roles to different accused. The Sessions Judge discarded the prosecution evidence and acquitted all accused. The High Court dismissed the State's leave petition and appeal in limine with a brief order stating only: “Prayer for leave to appeal is refused. Appeal is dismissed.” The present appeal before this Court challenges that summary dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing in limine the State’s petition for leave to appeal against acquittal (and the appeal) without examining the trial court’s reasons and without giving a reasoned order.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents' Submissions
- Respondents’ counsel referred to portions of the evidence to justify the acquittal.
- However, counsel also submitted that if the Court considered a reasoned High Court order necessary, the Court should refrain from discussing evidence on merits or expressing any opinion.
Common Position Noted
- Counsel for both sides did not dispute that the incident involved a number of persons and that there were many witnesses examined.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the High Court had rejected the leave petition and dismissed the appeal in limine without examining or addressing the reasons given by the Sessions Judge for discarding the prosecution evidence. This left the Court at a disadvantage, as it did not have the benefit of the High Court’s considered scrutiny of the trial court’s reasoning. The Court observed, upon perusal of the trial court judgment, that the reasons for discarding the entirety of the prosecution evidence were not so straightforward or so evidently sound that they did not require examination. Given the nature of the incident, the number of accused, and the multiple witnesses, the Court considered it appropriate that the High Court should examine the matter and provide reasons. Accordingly, the Court chose not to go into the merits of the evidence and refrained from expressing any opinion on issues that might arise on consideration.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED: The High Court’s order dated 14-7-1983 dismissing the leave petition and appeal in limine was set aside, and the State of Bihar’s petition for leave and the accompanying appeal were restored to the High Court’s file.
The High Court was directed to hear the parties and dispose of the matter by a reasoned order in accordance with law. The decision’s direct effect is to require fresh consideration by the High Court; the Court expressly avoided any determination on the merits and did not set out any broader legal precedent in the text provided.
G.L Oza, J.— This appeal has been filed in this Court against the dismissal in limine of a petition filed by the State of Bihar in the High Court of Judicature at Patna wherein learned judges of the High Court rejected a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal filed by the State Government under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in limine by only saying: “Prayer for leave to appeal is refused. Appeal is dismissed.”
2. Before the trial court 25 accused persons were tried on the allegation that they committed dacoity and in the commission of the said dacoity murder of one Ajab Lal Singh was committed. Consequently all of them were charged for offence under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that in the night intervening between 5th and 6th day of June, 1980 at Village Nandlal Patti situated within P.S Amarpur in the district of Bhagalpur, occurrence took place in the house of one Jawahar Lal Singh PW 21 who lodged the first information report; his house is situated in Nandlal Patti and in the course of dacoity his brother Ajab Lal Singh was killed. The incident is said to have taken place at 12 o'clock at midnight, and the information was lodged on 6-6-1980 at 8.45 a.m, at Bhagalpur Medical College Hospital as the informant was lying injured in the surgical ward of the hospital. At the trial there were number of eyewitnesses examined who claimed to have identified the accused persons in the light of a lantern burning at that time. The evidence also attributed different parts to different accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence discarded the evidence and acquitted all the accused persons from the charge levelled against them and unfortunately the Hon'ble High Court without examining the reasons on the basis of which the learned Sessions Judge discarded evidence dismissed the leave petition and appeal as mentioned above and therefore we are at a disadvantage as we have not before us the examination of the reasons by the High Court on the basis of which the learned trial court discarded the testimony and acquitted all the accused persons. Although learned counsel for the respondent referred to portions of the evidence to justify the order of acquittal he also contended that in case this Court feels that the High Court should have considered the matter and passed a reasoned order it would be proper that we may not refer to any part of the evidence on merits nor express any opinion.
3. Learned counsel for both the sides did not dispute that the incident was such wherein number of persons were involved. They also frankly accepted that there are number of witnesses examined in the case. A perusal of the judgment of the learned trial court also shows that all the reasons on the basis of which the whole of the prosecution evidence has been discarded is not so simple or reasons so good that they do not require examination. Under these circumstances therefore without going into the merits we feel that it would be better that the matter be examined by the learned judges of the High Court so that we may have the advantage of considering the considered opinion of the High Court on the reasons which weighed with the learned trial court in discarding the prosecution evidence and acquitting the respondents.
4. In view of the facts of the case and the circumstances indicated above we feel that it would be better if the High Court considers the matter and disposes it of after giving reasons and in view of this we think it proper not to express any opinion on any of the matters that may deserve consideration. The appeal is therefore allowed. The order passed by the High Court on 14-7-1983 is set aside and the appeal alongwith petition for leave filed by the State of Bihar is restored to the file of High Court and it is directed that the Hon'ble High Court after hearing the parties shall dispose of the matter giving reasons for the conclusions in accordance with law.
Alert