STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAM NAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. As against an order of acquittal of three accused for offences under Section 302 read 'with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code the state preferred an appeal and an application for leave to appeal. A Division Bench of the high Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal by a reasoned order. Consequently, the appeal was rejected with one sentence order. Unfortunately, the State produced only the copy of the one sentence order by which the appeal was rejected. The respondents made the other order available to us for our perusal. We, therefore, act on the latter as it contained some more reasons.

(2.) Even on perusing the reasoned order we feel that High Court should have granted leave and considered the appeal on merits. The only three grounds mentioned by the High court for refusal to grant leave are :

(3.) The eye-witnesses are not responsible for delay in recording the statements by the investigating Officer. It should be ascertained whether there was any good reason for the said delay. The apart, the matter required detailed consideration by the High Court. We think that leave should have been granted by the High Court as prayed by the State.