Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the High Court's order dated 13.06.2008 rejecting its application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents in Sessions Case No. 140 of 2000. The trial court had acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 143, 147, 323 read with 149, 325 IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The High Court declined leave, observing that medical evidence did not indicate injuries on the complainant's back or thigh. However, the Supreme Court found that this finding was contrary to the medical evidence on record, as Dr. Yashwant (PW-5) had testified that the complainant sustained a fracture of the left tibia and lacerated wounds, with documents exhibited as Exhibits 121 and 131. The Supreme Court, relying on State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008) 9 SCC 475, held that the High Court must apply its mind to whether a prima facie case or arguable points exist, not whether the acquittal would be set aside. The Court also noted a cross-complaint arising from the same incident, with an appeal pending before the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the High Court to take the appeal on file and decide it expeditiously along with the connected appeal. In a related appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 2019), the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order rejecting the complainant's revision and remitted it for fresh consideration. The other appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos. 798 of 2010 and 800 of 2010) were disposed of as no further orders were required.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 378(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 - High Court must consider whether a prima facie case is made out or arguable points raised, not whether acquittal would be set aside - The High Court rejected leave based on a finding contrary to medical evidence - Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was unsustainable and set it aside, granting leave to appeal (Paras 4-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the State's application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned order dated 13.06.2008 set aside; application for leave to appeal allowed; High Court directed to take the appeal on file and decide it expeditiously along with Criminal Appeal No. 849 of 2005. In Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 2019, leave granted, impugned order set aside, matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration. Criminal Appeal Nos. 798 of 2010 and 800 of 2010 disposed of.
Law Points
- Scope of Section 378(3) Cr.P.C.
- Leave to appeal against acquittal
- Prima facie case
- Perversity of trial court judgment
