@ Balo Das and Ors Vs. Rajesh Das and Ors  Insc 250 (21 February 2008)
Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam
APPEAL NO. 356 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 2006/2007) Dr. ARIJIT
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of Jharkhand
High Court setting aside the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour
of the present appellants by allowing the revision filed by respondent
No.1-Rajesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'informant'). Learned counsel for
the appellants submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly
erroneous. No reasons have been indicated to show that there was any infirmity
in the trial Court's judgment. In fact, according to him, the trial Court's
judgment was a very detailed one and ample reasons were indicated. The High
Court without even pointing out as to what infirmity existed, in a mechanical
manner directed the matter the matter to be re-heard. Abrupt conclusion was
arrived at that the trial Court had not appreciated the evidence on record in
its right perspective and by mis-appropriation of evidence, directed acquittal.
It is submitted that it has not been indicated as to how the evidence has not
been appreciated in the right perspective and/or how there was mis-appropriation
of evidence. It is pointed out that the revision was not maintainable at the
instance of the complainant. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction has to be
within limited parameters. Unless there are glaring defects in the procedure or
manifest errors of law leading to great mis-carriage of justice, there is no
scope for interference. It is pointed out that the alleged occurrence took
place on 20.11.1994 and a complaint was filed after about 13 months i.e. on
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that though the High Court has
not referred to the evidence in detail, the conclusions of the trial Court are
sufficient to show that the appellants were guilty of alleged offence.
impugned order of the High Court reads as follows:
revision has been filed by the informant against the impugned Judgment by
which, the accused persons were acquitted from the charges under Section 364,
366A, 368 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
appears from the impugned Judgment that though the trial Court held that the
minor girl Sarita Kumari was kidnapped from the lawful guardianship of her
father but by discarding the evidence of P.Ws. on the ground that they are
hearsay and further rejecting the evidence of the prosecutrix Sarita Kumari on
the ground that the same was contradictory to her statement made under Section
164 Cr.P.C., acquitted the accused persons holding that the prosecution failed
to produce any reliable evidence.
view, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its right
perspective and by misappreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused
without giving any specific finding on the evidence on record, the matter is
being remitted to the Trial Court by setting aside the impugned order with a
direction to the Trial Court to consider the materials and evidence on record
afresh in its right perspective and pass a fresh Judgment in accordance with
law after hearing the parties on the basis of the materials already on record
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
bare reading of the impugned order shows that no reason has been indicated
and/or there has been no analysis of the evidence recorded. The abrupt
conclusions arrived at show non application of mind.
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. The absence of reasons has
rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v.
Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed "The
giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it
to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links
between the mind of the decision taker to the 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, render
it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate 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 of natural
justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking
order. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous
with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
Above being the position, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable and is
set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court to dispose of the revision
petition afresh in accordance with law.
appeal is allowed.