Special Leave To Appeal U/S 378 (4) CrPC Can Be Granted Only When View Of Acquitting Judge Is Unreasonable: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday observed that special leave to appeal as envisaged under Section 378(4) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) could be granted by the High Court only where the view taken by acquitting judge is clearly unreasonable.

The Bench of Justice Mohd. Aslam further added that it is the duty of the court to punish the guilty person when the guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt and it is also the duty to acquit the accused when it is not so established.

It may be noted that as per Section 378 (4) of CrPC, an appeal against the order of acquittal in any case instituted upon complaint could be moved to the High Court by the Complainant only when the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal.

The Background of the Case 

In the instant case, one Smt. Habiba (applicant/original complainant) moved an application in 2009 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the magistrate alleging that her husband and in laws were harassing and physically torturing her in connection with dowry demand. This application was treated as a complaint. 

The judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing the counsel for the complainant, summoned opposite party no.2 (Jamal Ahmed) and opposite party no.3 (Farzana) for facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 498-A & 323 I.P.C.

Thereafter, opposite party nos.2 & 3 appeared, and the statement of the Complainant was recorded under Section 244 of Cr.P.C and thereafter, charges of offence punishable under Sections 498-A & 323 I.P.C. was framed against the accused opposite party nos.2 & 3 to which they have not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the trial, it came on the record that it was the second marriage of the complainant and it took place under the pressure of her maternal grandfather. The Court also found that there were contradictions in the statement of complainant and complainant witnesses.

The Court also noted that no injury was found on the body of the complainant which could establish that she was not beaten and maltreated. Significantly, the defence witness stated that the complainant was a close relative of her husband and that her marriage with Jamal Ahmed was taken place under the pressure of her maternal grandfather without any dowry.

In view of this, finding that her husband and her mother-in-law never maltreated her or demanded dowry, the Court held that offence punishable under Sections 323, 498- A I.P.C. was not made out against the accused and therefore, they were acquitted from the above charges.

Against that very order, the instant application for grant of leave to prefer appeal had been filed.

Court's order

From a perusal of the complaint and the testimonies of the witnesses, the High Court found that the Lower court was justified in hiding that that prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, it had rightly acquitted the accused from the charges.

Further, holding that it was proved that the complaint was filed on false and frivolous ground, the Court observed thus:

"A special leave to appeal could be granted only where the view taken by acquitting judge is clearly unreasonable, it is the duty of the court to punish the guilty person when the guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt not less than, it is the duty to acquit the accused when it is not so established."

In such circumstances, the impugned judgement and order of acquittal was found to be justified and accordingly, finding no merit in the application for special leave to appeal, the Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal.

Case title - Smt. Habiba v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 87

Click Here To Read/Download Order