SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(Mad) 353

MADRAS HIGH COURT
SOMASUNDARAM,RAMASWAMI GOUNDER
In re Rangaswami Goundan
Versus
.
Referred Trial No. 76 of 1956 (Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 1956)
Decided On : 24 October, 1956

Advocates Appeared:
E. Anthony Lobo and R. Rajagopal Aiyangar, for Appellant; Public Prosecutor, for the State.

Failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 173(4) of the CrPC, which requires the prosecution to furnish the accused with copies of certain documents, including statements recorded under sub-section (3) of Section 161 of the CrPC, vitiates the trial and may result in the conviction being set aside.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 173(4) - FAILURE TO FURNISH COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 161 - VITAL PROVISION - DISREGARD INVALIDATES CONVICTION - RETRIAL ORDERED.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Rangaswami Goundan, was convicted and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore for the murder of his mother. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence on the ground that the provisions of Section 173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) were not complied with.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the investigating officer had failed to furnish the appellant with a copy of the statement of P.W. 5, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, recorded under sub-section (3) of Section 161 of the CrPC. The court also found that the appellant was only provided with copies of the English translations of the statements of witnesses recorded in Tamil, and not the original Tamil statements.

Issues: 1. Whether the failure to furnish the appellant with a copy of the statement of P.W. 5 recorded under sub-section (3) of Section 161 of the CrPC vitiated the trial. 2. Whether the furnishing of English translations of the statements of witnesses recorded in Tamil, instead of the original Tamil statements, constituted a breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 173(4) of the CrPC.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the failure to furnish the appellant with a copy of the statement of P.W. 5 recorded under sub-section (3) of Section 161 of the CrPC was a breach of a mandatory provision of the CrPC and vitiated the trial. The court relied on the decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor, ILR 1948 Mad 1 : (AIR 1947 PC 67) (A), which held that the right of an accused person to obtain copies of statements recorded under Section 162 of the CrPC is a valuable one and that the omission to furnish such copies may cause prejudice to the accused. 2. The court also held that the furnishing of English translations of the statements of witnesses recorded in Tamil, instead of the original Tamil statements, constituted a breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 173(4) of the CrPC. The court reasoned that translations are subject to errors and that the spirit and force of particular expressions used by the witness in Tamil may not always be brought out accurately in the English translation.

Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and ordered a retrial. The court directed that the retrial be conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore and that all documents referred to in Section 173(4) of the CrPC be furnished to the appellant sufficiently in advance to enable him to prepare his defense.

Judgement

ORDER :- (SOMASUNDARAM, J.) :- This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, in S. C. No. 24 of 1956, in which the accused Rangaswami Goundan has been sentenced to death for the murder of his mother. We set aside the conviction and sentence and order a retrial and the reasons for the order will be given later. The accused will be tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore.

2. JUDGMENT :- (SOMASUNDARAM, J.) :- This is an appeal against the sentence of death passed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore in S. C. No. 24 of 1956 on his file. We do not propose to go into the merits of the case as we are ordering retrial on a question of law that has been raised before us.

3. The point that is taken before us is that the provisions of S. 173 (4), Criminal P. C., have not been complied with. Sub-s. (4) of S. 173, Criminal P. C., is in these terms :

"After forwarding a report under this section the officer in charge of the police station shall before the commencement of the enquiry or trial, furnish or cause to be furnished to the accused, free of cost, a copy of the report forwarded under sub-s. (1) and of the first information report recorded under S. 154 and of all other documents or relevant extracts thereof, on which the prosecution proposes to rely including the statements and confessions, if any, recorded under S. 164 and the statements recorded under sub-s. (3) of S. 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses."

4. This section makes it compulsory to furnish to the accused all the documents referred to therein. The complaint of the learned advocate for the appellant is that his client has not been furnished with a copy of the statement of P. W. 5 (the doctor who held the post mortem examination) recorded under sub-s. (3) of S. 161, Criminal P. C. It is conceded by the prosecution that this doctor was examined by the investigating officer and that his statement was recorded in the case diary and that a copy of this statement has not been furnished to the accused.

But it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that failure or omission to furnish copy of such statements to the accused does not vitiate the trial. It is at best only an irregularity and in the absence of any prejudice being caused to the accused on account of this failure it is curable under S. 537, Criminal P. C. It is necessary to examine the relevant provisions in the light of the recent amendments introduced by Act XXIV of 1955. Before the amendment a copy of the report under S. 173 shall on application be furnished to the accused before the commencement of the enquiry or trial.

As regards the other documents referred to in sub-s. (4) of S. 173, as amended, they were furnished only on application by the accused. In fact as regards the statements of witnesses recorded under S. 162, Criminal P. C., according to the decisions of this Court and other High Courts, the right of the accused to obtain copies of such statements accrues only when the witness called by the prosecution is put into the witness box.

The accused is entitled to delay cross-examination of the witness till he is able to get copies of the statement made by the witness under S. 162. This inevitably led to delay in the disposal of cases. In practice, therefore, to avoid delay thus caused, these statements were furnished to the accused as soon as the witness got into the witness box. Now after the amendment it has become a statutory obligation on the part of the prosecution to furnish or cause to be furnished to the accused all documents referred to in sub-s. 4. of S. 173 Criminal P. C., before the commencement of the enquiry or trial.

The documents referred to therein are (1) copy of the report forwarded under sub-s. (1); (2) first information report recorded under S. 154; (3) statements and confessions, if any, recorded under S. 164, and (4) all other documents or relevant extracts thereof






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top