Back
Allahbad High Court
M.H.BEG
Devi Prasad - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 09/10/1964
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONSPIRACY - FORGERY - ADULTERATION OF CEMENT - EVIDENCE - APPROVER - CONFESSION - HANDWRITING EXPERT - IDENTIFICATION OF HANDWRITING - CORROBORATION - MISJOINDER OF CHARGES AND ACCUSED - PREJUDICE - SECTION 47 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a conspiracy to obtain cement and iron by means of forged permits in favour of fictitious and non-existent individuals and to use these controlled goods for the purposes of black marketing and also for adulteration of cement, by mixture with sand and earth, and its sale as good and genuine cement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conspiracy alleged did exist and that the accused persons were involved in it. The court relied on the evidence of the approver, the confession of one of the accused, the evidence of the handwriting expert, and the evidence of witnesses who proved the handwritings of the accused persons. The court also found that there was no misjoinder of charges and accused persons and that the accused persons were not prejudiced by the joinder of charges or of accused persons.
Issues: 1. Whether the conspiracy alleged existed and whether the accused persons were involved in it. 2. Whether the evidence of the approver, the confession of one of the accused, the evidence of the handwriting expert, and the evidence of witnesses who proved the handwritings of the accused persons was reliable. 3. Whether there was a misjoinder of charges and accused persons and whether the accused persons were prejudiced by the joinder of charges or of accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the conspiracy alleged did exist and that the accused persons were involved in it based on the evidence of the approver, the confession of one of the accused, the evidence of the handwriting expert, and the evidence of witnesses who proved the handwritings of the accused persons. 2. The court found that the evidence of the approver, the confession of one of the accused, the evidence of the handwriting expert, and the evidence of witnesses who proved the handwritings of the accused persons was reliable after considering the principles for the assessment of each type of evidence and applying those principles to the evidence in the case. 3. The court held that there was no misjoinder of charges and accused persons and that the accused persons were not prejudiced by the joinder of charges or of accused persons.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals of some of the appellants and allowed the appeals of the other appellants. The court set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants whose appeals were allowed.
2. The learned Civil and Sessions Judge of Varanasi who heard this case, continuously for more than a year, examined exactly three hundred witnesses, whose evidence covered nearly 3000 pages, and 4989 documents were taken in evidence to prove the charges against the appellants. The learned Judge disposed of the case by means of a very elaborate but lucid judgment of 350 pages with a very neatly arranged index giving various headings under which the evidence and the contentions have been marshalled and dealt with. The length of the judgment does not diminish the clarity which results from the commendable systematic arrangement and treatment of all items of evidence and of the contentions advanced. Nevertheless, there is a danger in such a case that the evidence may be rather mechanically weighed and stamped as acceptable or unacceptable by applying much too simple tests. Such a danger of over simplification can only be met by a close scrutiny of all the evidence against and in favour of each accused and a thorough and careful consideration of the case of each accused individually. I have, therefore, carefully considered the case of each accused-appellant again. The whole evidence was re-examined and reassessed by me and the whole long judgment of the trial court was read before me. Parts of the evidence and the judgment were gone over several times before me during a hearing of nearly a month and a half. I will, however, deal only with questions which I consider material and significant in reassessing the evidence against each appellant.
3. The first objection taken on behalf of the appellants is that there was a misjoinder of accused persons and of charges in respect of separate transactions which has resulted in prejudice and injustice to the appellants who were so confused by the multiplicity of charges and profusion of evidence that they could not meet each of them separately properly. In a case of conspiracy, it is not necessary for the validity of a trial to ultimately prove that the conspiracy alleged actually existed. The validity of a joint trial upon charges for offences alleged to be parts
of the conspiracy is determined by the initial accusations levelled by the prosecution against the whole body of accused persons (vide K. Kunhammad v. State of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 661 relying upon Babu Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1938 PC 130). In this case, there is an accusation of conspiracy against each accused person which enables the case to pass the initial test of a valid joinder of a number of charges and of accused persons.
Moreover, I find that charge
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
