Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan have held that while deciding leave to appeal under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC), the High Court must assess whether a prima facie case or arguable points exist, rather than merely evaluating the likelihood of overturning the acquittal. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja & Anr. Case ? 

• The respondent (Mahesh Prakash Ahuja) was initially tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Sessions Case No. 132 of 2011 on charges of murdering his wife. 
• The alleged incident occurred on 2^nd April 2011, when India was playing the World Cup final against Sri Lanka in Mumbai. 
• According to the prosecution, after India won the match, the respondent began celebrating by firing shots in the air from his licensed pistol, and later allegedly fired a shot at his wife, who subsequently succumbed to the firearm injuries. 
• The couple's fifteen-year-old son was allegedly an eyewitness to the incident, but he later turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution's case. 
• The Trial Court acquitted the respondent of the murder charge, following which the State preferred an appeal before the Bombay High Court. 
• The High Court declined to grant leave to appeal against the acquittal under Section 378(3) of CrPC, noting that the Trial Court's view to acquit was a "possible view" not liable to be interfered with. 
• The original first informant (brother of the deceased) challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court, as the State chose not to appeal the High Court's order. 
• The offence in question was murder, which under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and also fine, for unlawfully causing the death of another person with the intention of causing death or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court found that the High Court's approach in denying leave to appeal was untenable, as it based its findings on whether the order of acquittal would be set aside rather than whether a prima facie case existed, or arguable points had been raised. 
• Relying on precedent from State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008), the Court emphasized that when deciding an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal, the High Court must apply its mind to determine whether a prima facie case exists. 
• The Supreme Court noted that the High Court should not deny leave solely based on a prima facie assessment of whether the acquittal would be overturned but should consider whether arguable points have been raised challenging the acquittal. 
• The Court observed that it was not convinced with the reasoning provided by the High Court while declining to grant leave against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 
• The Supreme Court acknowledged that the case hinged on circumstantial evidence and that one of the prime witnesses (the 15-year-old son) had turned hostile, but maintained these factors should not have prevented proper consideration of the leave application. 
• Without making further observations that might prejudice either side, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration of the criminal appeal on its merits. 
• The Court clarified that the criminal appeal against the acquittal should be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made in the Supreme Court's order. 
• The offence under consideration was murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which is a grave offence against the person, punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and also fine, involving the unlawful taking of human life with requisite mens rea. 

What is Section 419 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)? 

• Section 419 of BNSS deals with appeals against acquittals and provides who has the authority to direct such appeals and under what circumstances. 
• Section 378 of CrPC is replaced by Section 419 of BNSS (New Criminal Law). 
• Under subsection (1), the District Magistrate may direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an acquittal order passed by a Magistrate in cognizable and non-bailable offence cases. 
• The State Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to appeal to the High Court from any original or appellate acquittal order passed by any court (except High Court), provided it's not an order under clause (a) or an acquittal order passed by the Court of Session in revision. 
• Subsection (2) extends similar powers to the Central Government in cases investigated by agencies empowered under Central Acts. 
• As per subsection (3), no appeal to the High Court under subsections (1) or (2) can be entertained without obtaining leave from the High Court. 
• Subsection (4) appears to allow complainants to make applications for special leave to appeal in certain circumstances (though the full text of this subsection seems truncated in your provided information). 
• Subsection (5) establishes time limits for filing applications for special leave to appeal: six months for public servant complainants and sixty days in all other cases, calculated from the date of the acquittal order. 
• According to subsection (6), if an application for special leave to appeal is refused, no appeal from that acquittal order can be made under subsections (1) or (2). 

Landmark Judgment  

• State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008): 
  • The Supreme Court established that when deciding an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal, the High Court must apply its mind to determine whether a prima facie case exists or if arguable points have been raised. 
  • Justice C.K. Thakker clarified that the High Court should not enter into minute details of prosecution evidence at the leave stage or refuse leave merely by observing that the judgment of acquittal could not be termed "perverse." 
  • The ruling established that while it's not mandatory to grant leave in every petition against acquittal, if arguable points have been raised and the material on record requires deeper scrutiny or reappreciation of evidence, the appellate court must grant leave and decide the appeal on merits.