Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
10th October, 1961
K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Rama Shankar Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
State of W.B., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Nur-ud-din Ahmned and Pritam Singh Safeer, Advocates, for Appellants; Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate and Mr. P. K. Mukherjee, Advocate for Mr. P. K. Bose, Advocate, for Respondent.
CRIMINAL LAW - TRIAL BY JURY - VERDICT VITIATED - POWER OF HIGH COURT TO APPRAISE EVIDENCE AND CONFIRM SENTENCE OF DEATH - SECTION 423, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SECTION 374, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SECTION 342, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 342 - IRREGULARITY - PREJUDICE - MURDER - SENTENCE OF DEATH - CONFIRMATION.
Fact of the Case:
Four persons were killed in a riot, and the appellants were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The High Court confirmed the sentence, but the appellants appealed, arguing that the verdict of the jury was vitiated and that the High Court had no power to appraise the evidence and confirm the sentence of death.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had the power to appraise the evidence and confirm the sentence of death, even though the verdict of the jury was vitiated. The Court also held that the examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was irregular, but that the irregularity did not prejudice the appellants. The Court further held that the evidence supported the conviction of the appellants for murder, and that the sentence of death was appropriate.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court had the power to appraise the evidence and confirm the sentence of death, even though the verdict of the jury was vitiated? 2. Whether the examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was irregular? 3. Whether the irregularity prejudiced the appellants? 4. Whether the evidence supported the conviction of the appellants for murder? 5. Whether the sentence of death was appropriate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court has the power to appraise the evidence and confirm the sentence of death, even though the verdict of the jury is vitiated, under Sections 423 and 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was irregular, as the questions were complex and rolled up several distinct matters of evidence in a single question. 3. The irregularity did not prejudice the appellants, as they were unable to suggest any other answer which they could have given to the questions, even if they had been specifically put to them. 4. The evidence supported the conviction of the appellants for murder, as it was clear that they had forcibly entered the house of Ramdeo Ahir and killed Rampiari and Hiralal, and that Ram Shankar had also stabbed Suraj Dubey, when he attempted to protest against his conduct. 5. The sentence of death was appropriate, as the assault upon the members of the family of Ramdeo Ahir was conceived and initiated with deliberation, and with the object of slaughtering a defenceless woman and her young son.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Judgment
SHAH, J. : At 9-30 p. m. on March 21, 1959, four persons--Rampiari, Hiralal, Shyama Prosad Missir and Surajnath Dubey-all residing within Police Station Golabari in the town of Howrah suffered incised and punctured injuries and died in consequence thereof. The appellants and two others were tried before the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Howrah with a jury for rioting and causing fatal injuries to these four victims and thereby committing offences punishable under Ss. 148, 302 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The jury brought a unanimous verdict of guilty against appellants Ram Shankar Singh, Bimala and Sudama Singh for offences punishable under Ss. 148, 302 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and against Ramnarayan Missir for offences punishable under Ss. 148 and 326 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and a verdict of not guilty against Depali wife of Ramnarayan Missir. The Sessions Judge accepted the verdict and sentenced the appellants, subject to confirmation by the High Court, to suffer the penalty of death and Ramnarayan Missir to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, and acquitted Depali. The reference for confirmation of death sentence and the appeal filed by the appellants and Ramnarayan Missir against the order of conviction and sentence were heard by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. The High Court held that the verdict of the jury was vitiated on account of misdirection by the Sessions Judge, and after an elaborate examination of the evidence found the appellants Ram Shankar and Bimala guilty of offences under S. 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Rampiari and Hiralal. The High Court also found appellant Ram Shankar guilty of murder for causing the death of Surajnath Dubey by stabbing him with a knife, and appellant Sudama Singh for causing the death of Shyama Prosad Missir by stabbing him with a knife, and confirmed the sentence of death passed by the Sessions Judge. The High Court, acquitted Ramnarayan Singh (sic: Missir?) of the offence of grievous hurt of which he was convicted by, the trial court. With certificate granted by the High Court this appeal is preferred by the three appellants.
2. Two bustees in the town of Howrah-No. 7 Madhab Ghosh Road and No. 7 Tikiapara Road-are separated by a common courtyard. Ram Shankar, Bimala, Ramnarayan Singh (sic: Missir?) and Depali lived in No. 7 Madhab Ghosh Road, Ramdeo Ahir, his wife Rampiari and son Hiralal lived in a room in 7 Tikiapara Road and Shyama Prosad Missir lived in another room in that bustee. Surajnath Dubey lived in a room in No. 9 Madhab Ghosh Road. At about 1l a.m. on March 21, 1959 there was an altercation in the common courtyard between Ramnarayan Missir, his wife Depali and Ram Shankar s wife Bimala on the one hand find Ramdeo, his wife Rampiari and his son Hiralal on the other. This attracted the attention of several residents of the locality, and the parties were pacified by Jadunandan Roy and Joy Lal Choudhury and were pursuaded to retire to their respective rooms. At about 7 p.m. on the same day after Ram Shankar returned home there was another altercation and Jadunandan and others again intervened and pacified the parties, who were-quarrelling, Hiralal and is mother Rampiari returned to their room and apprehending an assault they chained the door from within. It was the case for the State that at about 9 p.m., 5 to 7 "Hindusthani" came armed with iron rods and knives to 7 Madhab Ghosh Road and joined Ram Shankar, Sudama Singh, Bimala, Ramnarayan Missir and Depali who were also armed with lethal weapons, such as knives, swords and iron-rods. The whole party then proceeded to No. 7 Tikiapara Road and Sudama Singh broke open the door of the room of Ramdeo Ahir. Ram Shankar and his wife Bimala then entered the room, Sudama Singh standing outside. Ram Shankar and Bimala attacked Rampiari and Hiralal and stabbed them to death. On hearing the shrieks of Rampiari and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
