1. Criminal trespass and causing grievous hurt under Sections 447 and 325, Indian Penal Code — Challenge to acquittal based on alleged defective charge to the jury. (Para 1 , 5 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
12th February, 1960.
S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
Smt. Nagindra Bala Mitra and another, Appellants
Versus
Sunil Chandra Roy and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Purshottam Tricumdas, Senior Advocate, (M/s. H. J. Umrigar and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; M/s. N. C. Chatterjee and R. L. Anand, Senior Advocates, (Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, with him), for Respondent 1; Mr. A. C. Mitra, Senior Advocate, (M/s. A. M. Pal and P. K. Bose, Advocates with him), for Respondent 2.
Advocates:
A.C.Mittal, A.M.PAL, B.P.MAHESHVARI, D.N.MUKHERJI, H.J.Umrigar, N.C.CHATTERJI, P.K.BOSH, PURSHOTTAM TRIKAMDAS, R.L.Anand
A.C.Mittal, A.M.PAL, B.P.MAHESHVARI, D.N.MUKHERJI, H.J.Umrigar, N.C.CHATTERJI, P.K.BOSH, PURSHOTTAM TRIKAMDAS, R.L.Anand
A jury's verdict will not be set aside unless there is a serious misdirection by the trial judge that causes a failure of justice. Prolixity or a witness-wise summary in the charge does not vitiate the verdict if the case is fairly left to the jury.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 325 and 447 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Sections 297 and 162 - Constitution of India - Article 136 - Interference with jury verdict - A verdict of a jury cannot be set aside unless it is established that there has been a serious misdirection by the Judge in charging the jury which has occasioned a failure of justice and misled the jury in giving its verdict (Para 14) - Duty of the Judge under Section 297 CrPC is to sum up the evidence for the prosecution and defence and lay down the law, marshalling the evidence to provide proper assistance to the jury in deciding which view of the facts is true (Para 14).
(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Section 162 - Statements to police - Distinction between omissions and contradictions - The failure of a witness to mention a specific detail before the police does not necessarily constitute a contradiction that vitiates the verdict, provided the substantive evidence is considered (Paras 27-28).
(C) Medical Evidence - Expert opinion - In cases with eye-witnesses of physical violence, the value of medical evidence is generally corroborative, proving that injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged; however, the defence may use it to prove that injuries could not possibly have been caused in the alleged manner to discredit eye-witnesses (Para 23).
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with criminal trespass and voluntarily causing grievous hurt, which resulted in the death of the deceased. Following three separate trials, the third trial resulted in an acquittal by a jury. The appellants challenged this acquittal, contending that the trial judge's charge to the jury was defective, failed to properly marshal evidence, misdirected the jury on medical testimony, and admitted inadmissible evidence under Section 162 CrPC.
Findings of Court:
The court held that although the charge was lengthy and structured witness-wise rather than topic-wise, it did not amount to a gross misdescription of the evidence. The trial judge properly presented the divergent views of medical experts to the jury. Minor errors in the definition of legal terms or the failure to direct the jury toward a lesser offence did not result in a failure of justice.
Issues: Whether the charge to the jury was so defective in its marshalling of evidence and directions on law and medical testimony that it led to a manifestly erroneous verdict, thereby resulting in a failure of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: A jury's verdict should not be interfered with unless a serious misdirection is established. A charge must be read as a whole; prolixity or the adoption of a witness-wise summary does not necessarily vitiate the trial if the case is fairly left within the jury's province. The judge's role is to guide the jury on essential points without usurping their function as the sole judges of fact.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Whether the trial judge's charge to the jury was defective due to misdirection, failure to marshal evidence, and improper admission of evidence, resulting in a failure of justice. (Para 7 , 8 , 16 , 18 , 20 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 29 )
3. The charge to the jury, though prolix, fairly left the case within the jury's province without gross misdirection or a double standard in evaluating evidence. (Para 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. A jury verdict cannot be set aside unless there is serious misdirection in the charge that has occasioned a failure of justice and misled the jury. (Para 14 , 17 , 30 )
6. Under what circumstances can a court set aside a jury verdict based on the judge's charge?
A jury verdict cannot be set aside unless it is established that there was a serious misdirection by the judge in charging the jury which misled the jury and occasioned a failure of justice. (Para 14 , 17 , 30 )
7. What is the judge's duty when summing up evidence for a jury under Section 297 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
The judge must sum up the evidence for the prosecution and defence and lay down the law. While they should marshal evidence to assist the jury, a witness-wise summary is acceptable if the essential points and probabilities are brought out. (Para 14 , 17 )
8. How should a jury weigh medical expert evidence against the testimony of eye-witnesses of physical violence?
Medical evidence is generally corroborative. If the jury believes the eye-witnesses, medical evidence is not strictly necessary unless it completely rules out the possibility that the injuries could have occurred in the manner alleged. (Para 23 )
9. What is the effect of omitting certain facts in a police statement under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Not every omission in a police statement constitutes a contradiction. Only failures to mention material facts that are later testified to in court may be treated as contradictions to challenge a witness's credit. (Para 27 , 28 )
Judgment
S. K. DAS, J. : (on behalf of himself and A. K. SARKAR, J.) This is an unfortunate case in more than one sense. So far back as August 11, 1950, there was some incident in premises No. 18 Bondel Road in Calcutta in the course of which one Col. S. C. Mitra, a Gynaecologist and Surgeon, lost his life. Col. Mitra was the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2. In connection with the Colonel s death, Sunil Chandra Roy, at present respondent No. 1, and his two brothers were placed on their trial for offences under Ss. 302, 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. Very shortly put, the case against them was that they had trespassed into 18 Bondel Road, following upon a quarrel regarding the supply of water to premises No. 17 Bondel Road which belonged to petitioner No. 2 and consisted of several flats one of which on the second floor was in occupation of Sunil as a tenant; that they had attacked Col. Mitra and petitioner No. 2; that Sunil had inflicted a blow or blows on the Colonel which caused his death and that one of his brothers Satyen had inflicted some minor injuries on the person of petitioner No. 2. There was also a charge against Sunil for an assault alleged to have been committed on Mrs. Sati Mitra, wife of petitioner No. 2. The accused persons were, in the first instance, tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Alipur with the result that Sunil was convicted under Ss. 325 and 447 and Satyen under Ss. 323 and 447, Indian Penal Code. So far as the third brother Amalesh was concerned, his case was referred to the High Court as the learned Judge did not agree with the jury s verdict of not guilty.
2. Sunil and Satyen appealed to the High Court against their convictions and sentences; the State of West Bengal obtained a Rule for enhancement of the sentences passed on Sunil and Satyen. The appeal, the Rules and Reference were heard together. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court of Calcutta directed that Sunil and Satyen be retried at the Criminal Sessions of the High Court. The Reference in respect of Amalesh was rejected and the Rule for enhancement of the sentences passed necessarily fell through.
3. Sunil and Satyen were then tried at the Criminal Sessions of the High Court by Mitter, J., with the aid of a special jury. The jury unanimously found Sunil guilty under sections 325 and 447, and Satyen under sections 323 and 447, Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge accepted the verdict and sentenced both Sunil and Satyen to various terms of imprisonment and fines.
4. An appeal was then preferred by Sunil and Satyen. This appeal was again allowed, and another re-trial was directed at the Criminal Sessions of the High Court.
5. The retrial was held by P. B. Mukherjee, J. Before the commencement of the trial, the State withdrew the case against Satyen on the ground of the state of his health. Therefore, Sunil alone was tried, and the charges against him at the third trial were two in number : one under S. 325 Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Col. Mitra & the other under S. 447, Indian Penal Code for criminal trespass into premises No. 18 Bondel Road with intent to intimidate, insult or annoy Col. Mitra or his son Nirmal, petitioner No. 2 herein. This time the jury, by a majority verdict of 7 to 2 found Sunil not guilty of the charge under S. 325, Indian Penal Code and, by a majority of 6 to 3, found him not guilty of the other charge also. The learned Judge accepted the verdicts and acquitted Sunil.
6. Then, the State of West Bengal preferred an appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal, but the High Court summarily dismissed it on June 14, 1954, on the ground that no case had been made out for the admission of the appeal under the provisions of S. 411A (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. Then, on July 22, 1954, the petitioner herein made an application to the High Court for a certificate under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution that the case is a fit one
