This Article has been written by Ms. Karishma Singh , a 2nd year B.A LL.B student from Lloyd Law College
Criminal Appeal No. : 110 of 1970
Case Title : Ram Jag And Others vs The State Of U.P on 21 December, 1973
Petitioner : Ram Jag and Others
Vs
Respondent : State of U.P
Date of the judgement : 21/12/1973
Case Details :
The Court’s decision was made by CHANDRACHUD J.-The appellants, 11 in all, were acquitted by the Supplementary Session Judge Gonda, but the acquittal was acquitted by the Allahabad High Court (Bank). goods Lucknow) cancelled upon appeal. The High Court convicted the appellants under sections 302, 325 and 323 read in conjunction with section 149 and under section 147 of the Penal Code. They were sentenced to life in prison for murder and shorter terms for other charges. This special leave appeal is against that ruling. The allegation against the appellants was that on the evening of September 17, 1966, they formed an illegal assembly and, by pursuing the common goal of this meeting, they caused Hausla’s death. Prasad and wounded Rampher, Dwarika and Lakhu.
Facts:
On September 17, 1966, it was one day the late Kajri Tij, Rampher and Hausla Prasad went to a temple about 8 miles from the village of Jhampur where they lived. They left the temple in the late afternoon with the Dwarika and Lakhu they had met at the temple. Shortly after crossing a river near the village of Singh Chanda, they were attacked by callers. Dwarika brought a bullock cart from the village called Gauhani and then 4 injured people went to Tarabganj police station. On the way, Rampher read the first informational report to a boy named Gorakhnath and soon it was delivered to the police station at around 12:30pm. Hausla Prasad died of his injuries shortly before the group arrived at the police station. He has 12 wounds on his body, Lakhu and the bulky Rampher receive 6 while Dwarika takes 9. The injuries these people, including Hausla Prasad, were mostly lacerations and abrasions. The prosecution considered Rampher, Dwarika, Lakhu, Ram, Shanker and Ram Kripal (P. Ws 2-6) as witnesses to the event. The erudite judge of the supplementary session found these witnesses unreliable and acquitted the appellants. The Supreme Court was not impressed with the testimony of Ram Shanker et. Ram Kripal, but accepting the evidence of Rampher, Dwarika and Lakhu, she finds the appellants guilty of the crime they are accused of. Crown educated counsel, when called, made a fundamental objection to our review of the various issues raised on behalf of the appellants.
In Sheo Swarup and Ors. v. King-Emperor , these conflicting decisions were debated before the Privy Council, but the latter did not consider the long list of decisions to be unhelpful. Recognizing that the answer to the question in dispute would depend on the interpretation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Privy Council read sections 404, 410, 417, 418 and 422, considering sections 404, 410, 417, 418 and 422. section 423 and concludes that the Code does not draw a distinction between an appeal against an acquittal and an appeal against a conviction, so far as the powers of the Supreme Court are concerned. Speaking on behalf of the Judiciary Committee, Lord Russell commented:
“In their view, there is no basis for the view, which seems to be supported by the rulings of several Indian courts, that the Supreme Court has neither the power nor the jurisdiction to annul the an acquittal on a matter of fact, unless a subordinate of the court has “deliberately made a mistake”, or has “incompetent, stupid, or stubborn” reached “warped conclusions”. distorted to the extent that it would result in a wrongful trial”, or otherwise conducted or performed to result in a serious wrongful trial, or has been misled by the defense to produce a similar result.
The extent of the High Court’s power in appeals against acquittal was reiterated by the Privy Council in Nur Mahomed v. Emperor. In coming to the conclusion that on the basis of this evidence an acquittal should be set aside, the Privy Council insisted that before reading a conclusion on the facts, The High Court must always consider certain problems, such as presumption of innocence, benefit of doubt etc . This broad and unlimited limitation of power was expressed only by this court in Surajpal Singh v. State (2) , stating that while it is clear that the High Court has full jurisdiction over the evidence of on which the acquittal is based, “there is also solid ground that the presumption of innocence of defendant was further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the magistrate’s findings in favor of meeting the witnesses and hearing their evidence could only be set aside before very serious and compelling reasons”. The phrase “ Important and compelling reason “ has almost become part , so to speak. The law is codified and has been used many times by this Court with emphasis
Issues :
(i) whether the Supreme Court was correct in accepting the testimony of three witnesses; And
(ii) therefore, the Court, in exercising its powers under Section 136 of the Constitution, should not re-evaluate this evidence to determine whether it can support the conviction of the appellants. Are not. .
Decision :
In a series of decisions, the High Court held that when appealing the acquittal, the appellate court had no right to interfere with the trial court’s decision on the facts, unless the appellate court acted in a corrupt or inappropriate or deceived manner. by fraud. . (See Empress of India v. Gayadin(1); Queen-Empress v. Robinson(2); Vice Remembrancer of Bengal v. Amulya Dwan (3); King-Emperor c. Deboo Singh (4); King-Emperor; versus U San Win (5).) On the other hand, jurisprudence has held that the Criminal Procedure Code does not distinguish between acquittal appeal and acquittal appeal, and such distinction cannot be declared by order of the court.
Verdict:
In the final part of the ruling, the High Court found that the injured had to be present at the scene and that the incident occurred “in broad daylight” so there was no reason not to accept their testimony, “although they may have one reason or another falsely related to one or the other defendant”. It is wrong to conclude that the case happened in broad daylight, and even more so when the High Court did not warn about the risk of accepting the evidence of witnesses who had false reasons to charge people with wrongdoing. appeal . For these reasons, we consider it unreasonable for the Supreme Court to interfere with the acquittal issued by the learned judge of the trial. We therefore authorized this appeal, set aside the convictions and convictions, and ordered the release of those who appealed if they have not been released on bail.
Allowed appeal
References :
https://www.legalauthority.in/
Case ; Sheo Swarup and Ors. v. King-Emperor
Case ; Nur Mahomed v. Emperor
Case ; Surajpal Singh v. State
Case ; Empress of India v. Gayadin
Case ; Queen-Empress v. Robinson
Case ; ice Remembrancer of Bengal v. Amulya Dwan
Case ; King-Emperor c. Deboo Singh
Case ; King-Emperor; versus U San Win