Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Anoop Chitkara, J., dismissed an appeal filed to challenge the acquittal of the respondents-accused, for causing simple hurt and wrongful restraint. The appellant-State had come up before this Court seeking the conviction of accused, by filing the Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the CrPC.

An FIR was filed by the complainant alleging that she was a farmer and while she was lopping leaves from her compound, Accused 1 and Accused 2, who was carrying a bamboo stick obstructed her from lopping the leaves and claimed that the land belonged to her. On the suspicion that the accused was going to beat her, she ran to her house and requested them that she did not want to quarrel and if the compound fell on their land then they could go for demarcation and if the land was found belonging to them then she would vacate her possession but the accused entered the house and started beating her with sticks. Her mother in law tried to stop the accused on which they started beating her also due to which she suffered several injuries. The medical examination of the complainant and the mother in law was conducted and the sticks were recovered from the accused and the trial court had framed charges under Sections 451 and 323 both read with 34 of Penal Code. The accused had denied all the offences but had not produced any evidence in their defense. The complainant during the cross-examination had admitted to the fact that a civil case was going on between them since 3 years, she also admitted later that at the time of the quarrel Balwant Singh, her daughter, two sons, her mother-in-law and members of the family of accused were also present The JMIC had acquitted both the accused of all the charges thus the instant appeal.

The Court while dismissing the appeal explained that the judgment of the trial court was a well-reasoned Judgment and was based on correct, complete and proper appreciation of evidence provided by the sole independent witness of the case who was the neighbor of the parties and he had stated that the accused Nirmala Devi was in his house and Seema Devi was in her own house. [State of H.P. v. Nirmala Devi, 2020 SCC OnLine HP 31, decided on 03-01-2020]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A.M. Sapre, J. speaking for himself and Uday U. Lalit, J. allowed an appeal filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby the  appellant’s application under Section 378(3) CrPC was rejected and the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the accused (respondents herein) was affirmed.

The respondents were prosecuted and tried for commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted the respondents of all the charges. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the appellant filed an application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) before the High Court which was rejected vide the order impugned. Against this order of the High Court, the appellant preferred the instant appeal.

The Supreme Court referred to State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008) 9 SCC 475 for looking at the parameters to be kept in mind by the High Court while deciding an application for leave to appeal. The Court perused the order impugned and felt constrained to observe that the High Court grossly erred in passing the same without assigning any reason. It was a clear case of non-application of mind, held the Supreme Court. The order impugned neither sets out the facts nor the submissions of the parties nor the findings nor the reasons as to why the leave to appeal was declined. In such circumstances, the order impugned was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the High Court for deciding the application afresh. The appeal was, thus, allowed. [State of U.P. v. Anil Kumar,2018 SCC OnLine SC 1223, dated 29-08-2018]