Krishan Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan
- SCC(2018) 18 SCC 214
- Neutral2018 INSC 756
- SCR[2018] 10 SCR 869
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an order of acquittal recorded after a full-fledged trial is sought to be set aside, the High Court must afford the acquitted person an opportunity of hearing before setting aside such acquittal; the absence of procedural safeguards such as notice and hearing to the acquitted person vitiates the order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
KRISHAN KUMAR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
BANUMATHI, J. :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 24.08.2015 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3953 of 2015 in which the High Court has set aside the order of acquittal of the appellant and remitted the matter back to the trial court for de novo trial only on the ground that the prosecutrix was not examined before the trial court.
3. We have heard Mr. Tripurari Rai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant-prosecutrix and Mr. Anish Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the High Court while considering the bail application in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3953 of 2015 filed by one Satish, even without issuing notice to the appellant herein who was acquitted by the trial court on the ground of absence of evidence, chose to set aside the order of acquittal. It was further submitted that 2 order of acquittal was recorded by the trial court after a full- fledged trial and while so setting aside the acquittal the High Court should have given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
5. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. At this juncture, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant-prosecutrix, has submitted that against the order of acquittal of the appellant, the prosecutrix has also filed an appeal i.e. S.B. Crl. Misc. Application NO.198 of 2016 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.802 of 2016 which is stated to be pending before the High Court.
6. In such view of the matter and since opportunity has not been afforded to the appellant, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
7. We request the High Court to afford sufficient opportunity to the appellant herein in S.B. Crl. Appeal No.802 of 2016 and to the prosecutrix while considering the matter afresh and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.
..........................J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
..........................J.
(VINEET SARAN)
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 28, 2018.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free