Judgement

Appeal (No. 6i of 1945) in forma pauperis by special leave from a judgment of the High Court (January 8, 1945) upholding the convictions of the appellant on charges of murder, attempted murder, and robbery resulting in grievous hurt, and I confirming the sentence of death passed on him by the Sessions Judge of Ambala (May 12, 1944).

The following introductory statement is taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The Appellant, on May 12, 1944, was convicted on a charge of murder and sentenced to death after a trial before the Sessions Judge of Ambala sitting with a jury of seven. The jury returned a verdict of guilty by a majority of four to three. There were other minor charges against the appellant on which he was also convicted, but it is unnecessary to refer to those. Sentence of death having been passed on the appellant the " proceedings," as required by s. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were submitted for confirmation to the High Court of Judicature at Lahore. The appellant also appealed to the High Court against his conviction.

The case came before a Divisional Bench of the High Court consisting of Trevor Harries C.J. and Teja Singh J. After reviewing the evidence and the summing-up of the Sessions Judge to the jury they came to the conclusion that certain material evidence had been improperly admitted at the trial and that the judge had seriously misdirected the jury. The court had then to consider what were its powers in that situation and what course it should adopt. Counsel for the appellant maintained that on both grounds the verdict of the jury should be set aside and a new trial ordered. Counsel for the Crown maintained that notwithstanding the defects in the proceedings the court was entitled to examine for itself the whole proceedings, including the evidence, and should not set aside the verdict of the jury and order a new trial unless it was satisfied on a consideration of the whole case that the verdict was wrong and that there had been a failure of justice.

In view of the importance of the questions raised as to the powers of the High Court in such circumstances and as to the proper course to be pursued by it, and also in view of the divergent opinions expressed on this topic in a number of previous reported cases, the learned judges of the Divisional Bench decided to refer to a Full Bench the two following questions —" (i.) When in a murder reference and appeal it is " found that inadmissible evidence has been admitted in a jury " trial, can this court in view of s. 167, Indian Evidence Act, " and/or s. 537, Criminal Procedure Code, exclude such evidence " and maintain a conviction if the evidence remaining is suffi- " cient to warrant it or must a re-trial be ordered ? (ii.) When " in a murder reference and appeal it is found that there have " been serious instances of misdirection and non-direction of a " jury, should this court in view of s. 537 Criminal Procedure " Code proceed itself to consider the evidence and maintain a " conviction if the evidence is sufficient or must a re-trial be " ordered ? "

Those questions were considered by a Full Bench of five judges (Trevor Harries C.J., Beckett, Rahman, Mehr Chand Mahajan and Teja Singh JJ.), which on December 11, 1944, delivered judgment, answering the questions as follows (i.) " Where inadmissible evidence has been admitted in a " murder reference and appeal under s. 449, Criminal Procedure " Code, the High Court may, after excluding such evidence, " maintain a conviction, provided the admissible evidence " remaining clearly establishes the guilt of the accused." (ii.) " The court in an appeal by an accused person under " s. 449, Criminal Procedure Code, can, where there has been a serious misdirection or non-direction, consider the evidence " and maintain the conviction if the evidence clearly establishes " the guilt of the accused."

The case was remitted with those answers to the Divisional Bench which, on January 8, 1945,