Supreme Court: Prima Facie Case Should Be Looked Into By HC While Considering Grant Of Leave U/S. 378(3) CrPC
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s Order that declined to grant leave under Section 378(3) of the CrPC to appeal against the Acquittal of the accused in a Murder Case.
The Supreme Court held that a prima facie case should be looked into by a High Court at the stage of considering grant of leave under Section 378(3) of the CrPC.
The Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s Order that had declined to grant leave under sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the CrPC to appeal against the Acquittal of the accused in a Murder Case. The Court granted leave to the brother of the deceased (Appellant) to Appeal against the Judgment of the High Court that held, “We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial court, to warrant any interference in this Appeal against Acquittal.”
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held “We are not getting into the debate whether the impugned order could have been questioned by the brother of the deceased (original first informant) or not. Prima facie, we are not convinced with the reasonings assigned by the High Court while declining to grant leave against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. We are conscious of the fact that the entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence. We are also conscious of the fact that one of the prime witnesses, i.e., the son of the deceased aged 15 years at the relevant point of time, turned hostile.”
Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocates R. Basant and Sanjay Kharde appeared as party-in-person for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Respondent (accused) was acquitted of charges under allegations of murdering his wife on in 2011. The prosecution alleged that the Respondent had fired celebratory shots after India’s victory in the Cricket World Cup, which killed his wife. The couple’s fifteen-year-old son was presented as an eyewitness, but he turned hostile during the trial. The Trial Court acquitted the Respondent.
The State of Maharashtra filed an acquittal Appeal before the High Court. However, the High Court declined to grant leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the CrPC.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing the grant of leave in acquittal appeals and referred to its decision in State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008), which laid down that the High Court must consider whether arguable points exist rather than deciding the Appeal’s final outcome at the leave stage. It was held that “in deciding the question whether requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its mind, consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of acquittal would or would not be set aside.”
Similarly, in Sita Ram v. State of U.P. (1979), the Supreme Court had held, “A single right of appeal is more or less a universal requirement of the guarantee of life and liberty rooted in the [concept] that men are fallible, that Judges are men and that making assurance doubly sure, before irrevocable deprivation of life or liberty comes to pass, a full-scale reexamination of the facts and the law is made an integral part of fundamental fairness or procedure.”
Therefore, the Bench remarked, “We are aware and mindful that the above observations were made in connection with an appeal at the instance of the accused. But the principle underlying the above rule lies in the doctrine of human fallibility that “Men are fallible” and “Judges are also men”. It is keeping in view the said object that the principle has to be understood and applied. Now, every crime is considered as an offence against the society as a whole and not only against an individual even though it is an individual who is the ultimate sufferer.”
Consequently, the Court held, “We also permit the appellant herein (original first informant) if at all he intends, to file appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. If any such appeal is filed, the same may be clubbed with the State’s appeal and both the appeals shall be heard together in accordance with law.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.
Cause Title: Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 282)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal; AOR C. George Thomas; Advocates Kaarunya Lakshmi, Nakul Patwardhan and Ansh Mittal
Respondents: Senior Advocates R. Basant and Sanjay Kharde; AOR Anagha S. Desai and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande; Advocates Satyajit A. Desai, Pravin V. Khandare, Shubham Singh, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Sachin Singh, Ananya Thapliyal, Naman Vashishtha, Akash Rajeev and Siddharth Dharmadhikari
