CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 356 of 2008 PETITIONER: Sunil @ Balo Das and Ors RESPONDENT: Rajesh Das and Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/02/2008 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 356 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 2006/2007)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. 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 11.12.1995.
3. 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.
4. The impugned order of the High Court reads as follows:
“Heard.
This 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.
It 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.
In my view, the trial Court has not appreciated
the evidence on record in its right perspective and by
misappreciation of evidence has acquitted the
accused persons.
Accordingly, 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 order.”
5. A 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 was observed:
“Failure 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.
8. 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.
9. The appeal is allowed.