Supreme Court Grants Leave In Acquittal Matter, Remits Appeal To Bombay High Court For Merits

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard an appeal by the brother of the deceased against an order of the Bombay High Court which had declined to grant leave under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to entertain the State’s appeal against an acquittal. The challenge arose after the Trial Court at Kalyan acquitted the accused of the charge of murdering his wife and the High Court refused the State’s application for leave; the State did not pursue a further appeal and the original informant’s brother approached the Supreme Court.

The Court held that the High Court erred in refusing leave solely on the ground that it did not find any perversity in the trial court’s reasoning, and it directed that leave be granted and the criminal appeal be remitted to the High Court for decision on merits. The Court noted that, at the leave stage, the appellate forum must “apply its mind” and consider whether a prima facie case or arguable points were made out rather than adjudicate the acquittal itself. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In our opinion, however, 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." The bench further recorded principles from earlier authorities, stressing the need for full-scale re-examination where appropriate and reminding that "Men are fallible" and "Judges are also men."

Background

The prosecution case arose from an incident on the intervening night of 2–3 April 2011 when, after India’s World Cup victory, the accused allegedly fired a licensed pistol and one shot struck his wife, who later died of firearm injuries. The couple’s then 15-year-old son was an eyewitness but was declared hostile at trial. The Trial Court accepted ballistic and medical evidence that the death was "unnatural" and found two shots were fired from the licensed pistol, one lodged in the deceased, but concluded that the chain of circumstances did not establish that the accused alone was responsible and acquitted him. The State filed an appeal against acquittal in the Bombay High Court under Section 378; the High Court declined leave, observing inter alia that the principal eyewitness had turned hostile, that prosecution witnesses showed inconsistencies and omissions, that there were delays in recording statements and in lodging the FIR, and that alleged recoveries and lodging entries were not satisfactorily proved. The High Court concluded that it did "not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial court, to warrant any interference" and refused leave.

The Supreme Court examined the applicable law, relying on this Court’s precedent in State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar and older authorities on the right of appeal. The Court held that a leave application under Section 378(3) required the High Court to consider whether a prima facie case or arguable points existed and to record reasons for refusal, rather than to carry out minute reappraisal of evidence at that stage. Observing that the High Court’s brief conclusion was inadequate, the Court granted leave, remitted the criminal appeal to the Bombay High Court to be decided on its merits in accordance with law, and clarified that the High Court must decide the appeal "without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by this Court in this order." The Court also permitted the appellant (original first informant) to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, if he chose to do so, and directed that any such appeal could be clubbed with the State’s appeal. The appeal was disposed of with pending applications stood disposed.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 282; Criminal Appeal No. 1048 of 2017 Case Title: Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Basant, Senior Counsel (for Respondent No.1); Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Senior Counsel (for the State)