'Not Expected From Appellate Court': MP High Court Sets Aside One-Line Acquittal Order, Remands Case For Fresh Decision

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a judgment of the Appellate Court, acquitting a man accused of voluntarily causing hurt, observing that the Appellate Court was expected to pass a well-reasoned order, but instead passed a one-line non-speaking order without assigning any reasons.

The bench of Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani observed;

"It is not expected from a Judicial Officer of the appellate Court to pass such a short, cryptic and non-speaking order without going into the merits of the case and discussing the evidence so also testing the reasonings given by the trial Court. Merely passing one line order that the appeal is accepted and to set aside the findings of the trial Court without assigning any reason is not proper on the part of appellate Court".

An appeal was filed by the State challenging the judgment of the Sessions Court wherein the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offence of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 of the IPC.

The counsel for the State argued that the appellate court, without assigning any reason, had set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. The judgment was short, cryptic and non-speaking as it does not contain any reasoning or discussion and therefore suffers from perversity and illegality.

The bench, referring to the case of Bani Singh v State of UP [(1996) 4 SCC 720], emphasized that the law expects the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merely by pursuing the reasoning of the trial court, but by cross-checking the reasoning and evidence on record.

Further, relying on the case of State of Rajasthan v Sohan Lal [(2004) 5 SCC 573], the bench reiterated that the giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of matters before courts.

In the present case, the bench noted that the trial court had found the respondent guilty after discussing the evidence on record. However, the judgment of the appellate court was short, cryptic and non-speaking. The bench empahsized that the Appellate Court passing a one-line order that the appeal was accepted while setting aside the findings of the trial court without assigning any reason was not justified. It observed;

"trial Court while discussing the evidence on record and other factual aspects has held respondent/accused Babulal guilty of offence under Section 323 of IPC and passed the sentence of six months RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation, but the impugned judgment of learned appellate Court is short, cryptic and nonspeaking. No reasoning has been given in the impugned judgment".

Therefore, the bench set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the matter back to the Appellate court to decide the appeal afresh.

Case Title: State v Babulal Malviya [CRA-1706-2016]

For State: Public Prosecutor D.R. Vishwakarma

For Accused: Advocate Mahesh Prasad Rajak

Click here to read/download the Order