http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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.                  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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.