Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Choudhary, J.
Sheopujan Koiri
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Revision No. 153 of 1953 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 19, 1953
CRIMINAL LAW - Joint trial - Legality - Offences committed in the course of the same transaction - Ingredients - Evidence - Appreciation - Defence evidence - Consideration - Necessity.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were convicted of various offences, including wrongful confinement, assault, and outraging the modesty of a woman. The prosecution alleged that petitioner No. 5 entered the complainant's house and attempted to molest her, and that the other petitioners arrived and assaulted the witnesses who had apprehended petitioner No. 5. The defence contended that the joint trial was illegal as there was no evidence of a previous arrangement between the petitioners and that the complainant was a woman of bad character.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the joint trial was illegal as there was no evidence of a previous arrangement between the petitioners and that the offences of rescuing petitioner No. 5 and assaulting the witnesses were not part of the same transaction as the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman. The court also found that the trial court had failed to consider the defence evidence properly and that the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the joint trial of the petitioners was legal. 2. Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the joint trial was illegal as there was no evidence of a previous arrangement between the petitioners and that the offences of rescuing petitioner No. 5 and assaulting the witnesses were not part of the same transaction as the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman. The court relied on the provisions of Section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately, except in the cases mentioned in Sections 234, 235, 236 & 239. The court also relied on the decision of the Patna High Court in Makru Lohar V/s. Ganga Sahu, AIR 1947 Pat 74 (A), which held that no comprehensive formula of universal application can be framed regarding the question whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction. 2. The court held that the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the petitioners. The court noted that the investigating officer did not find any mark of scaling over the wall or of entering into the house through the broken thatched tiles, which contradicted the complainant's testimony that petitioner No. 5 entered her house by scaling over the wall and going upon the thatched tiles. The court also noted that the trial court had failed to consider the defence evidence properly.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners, and acquitted them.
Choudhary, J.
1. Petitioner No. 1, Sheopujan Koiri, has been convicted under Sections 326 and 324, Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months under Sec.326, Penal Code, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sec.324, Penal Code, the substantive sentences of. imprisonment to run concurrently. Petitioner No. 2, Sukhu Koiri, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sec.324, Penal Code. Petitioners 3 and 4, Dasain Koiri and Dulesar Koiri, have been convicted under Sec.323, Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Petitioner No. 5, Rupu Koiri, has been convicted under Sections 457 and 354, Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under each of the sections, the sentences to run concurrently.
2. According to the case of the prosecution in the night between the 4th and 5th of September, 1951, a little before dawn, the complainant Musammat Bhagwatia was sleeping in her house when she woke up and found the petitioner Rupu Koiri sitting on her bed. On being challenged Rupu asked her to keep silence and made advances towards her. Musammat Bhagwatia gave him a push and raised an alarm in response to which Jaimangal (P. W. 3), Ganesh (P. W. 4) and Tapesar (P. W. 6) came to the lane near the entrance of her door. Rupu attempted to move away, but Musammat Bhagwatia caught hold of him by holding his dhoti and the door was opened. Rupu was secured by the aforesaid three witnesses. In the meantime the other four petitioners arrived at the spot and began assaulting the three witnesses. Ganesh managed to run away after he was assaulted, Tapesar fell down unconscious and Jaimangal was caught hold of by the accused persons and 10 to 15 other persons who happened to come to the house of Sheopujan where he was wrongfully confined.
3. The defence of the accused persons was that they were innocent and were falsely implicated in the case out of enmity. Musammat Bhagwatia was a woman of bad character & was in love with Nanku and on the alleged date of occurrence she having been detected to be with her lover in her house, falsely implicated Rupu Koiri, as being a person who entered her house, in order to save her lover Nanku.
4. The trial Court had convicted all the accused persons, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted those ten persons whose names were given in the petition of complaint, but had not been given in the first information report lodged by Musammat Bhagwatia.
5. The prosecution examined several witnesses to prove its case and the defence also examined some witnesses to prove their case. The trial Court accepted the prosecution evidence and rejected the defence evidence on a summary discussion of the depositions made by the defence witnesses and on a wrong reading of the documents exhibited on behalf of the defence in the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the case of the defence at all and also some material evidence of the prosecution witnesses which would throw a doubt on the truth of the prosecution case or support the defence version.
6. Mr. Akbar Imam appearing for the petitioners has raised two contentions. His first contention is that joint trial of petitioner No. 5 along with the other petitioners was illegal and the conviction was bad in law. He has submitted that there is nothing on the record to suggest that there was any previous arrangement between the petitioner No. 5 and the other petitioners with regard to the committing of the offence punishable under Sec.354, Penal Code, by petitioner no. 5, nor was there anything to suggest that the other petitioner had got out, in pursuance of that agreement, to rescue petitioner No. 5, if apprehended, and, that being the position, there could not be a joint tria
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
