LexAJMER SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
418 SOPREME COOR'l' REPOR'l'S (19531 1952 the deprivation of that right by a piece of discrimi- natory legislation would be sufficient to bring the Ameeruiinissa · h · h · l case wit m t e purview of artic e 14 of the Consti- Bagut1i and OthM s tution. v. Having regard to the view that we have taken, it !Iahboob Begum is unnecessary to consider whether the impugned and ot1iccs. legislation violates the provisions of article 31(1) or Mukh.,jea J. article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution. 'l'he result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs. 1952 Dec. 10. . Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellants: Rajinder Narain. Agent for respondents Nos. 1 to 12: M. &. K. Sastri. AJMER SINGH v. 'l'HE STATE OF PUNJAB. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS and BHAG WATI J J.] Crirninal Procedzire Code, 1898, SS. 842, 417--AJJ1Jeal aaa,inst acquittal-Inte1Jerence-Guidina pri nciple-Cri·minal trio l-Ex- aniina tion of· acciisefl-D·nty of Court-Irregular exam.ination- Valirlity of trial-Question of prejudice. After an order of a.cqnittal has heon ma.de tho presumption of innocence is further re-inforcocl by that orde1', and that- being so, the trial court's decision cannot be reversed 1nerely on the ground that the accused had failed to expla.in the cil'cumstances appearing against him but only for very substantial and cOn:1pelling reasons. In an appea.1 under s. 487, Criminal Procedure Code, tho High , Court bas full po\ver to revie"v t.he evidence upon 'vhich the ordtir of acquittal \Vas founded . . The duty of a Sessions Judge under s. 342; Criminal Pro· cedure Code, to examine the accused is not discbargitd by merely l'eading over the questions put to the accuB;ed in tbe ,l\Iagistrate's Court and his answers, and by asking hjm whether he bas to say anything about them. It is also not a sufficient compliance with the section to generally ask the accused that, having heard the vrosecution evidence what he has to say about it. Re p:iust be questioned separately about each material circumstance which is intended to be used against him. The whole object of the section S.O.R. SUPREM:El COURT REPOR'rs 419 is to afforcl the accused a fair aud proper opportunity of explain· 1962 ing circumstances which appear against him and the questions must be fair and must be couchecl in a form which an ignorant or Ajmer Singh illiterate person may be al)le to appreciate and understand. v. It is, however, well settlecl that every error or omission• in The State of complying with s. 342 does not necessarily vitiate the trial. Punjab. Errors·of this type fall within the category of curable irregulari- ties and the question whether the trial has been vitiated clependR in each case upon the degree of error and upon whether prejudice ~ has been or is likely to have been caused to the accused. Tara Si111Jh v. The State ([1951] S.C.R. 729) referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Ap- peal No. 67 of 1952. App~al by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 14th September, 1951,_ of the High Court 0£ Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla (Bhandari and Soni JJ.) in Criminal Appeal No. 3~>1 of 1950, arising out of Judgment and Order dated the 13th May, 1950, of the Court of the s·essions Judge, Ferozepore, in Trial No. 28 of 1950 and Case No. 5 of 1950. P. S. Safeer for the appellant. Gopal Singh for the respondent. ·' 1952. December 10. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J.-Ajmer Singh, a young man of about 22 years of age was tried for the murder of Bagher Singh, his first cousin, and was acquitted by the Sessions Judge of Ferozepore by his judgment dated 13th May, 1950. On appeal by the State Govern· ment, the order of acquittal was set aside by the High Court and the appellant was convicted under section 304, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to ten "years' rigorous imprisonment. This is an appeal by special leave against that decision. , One Nikka Singh had three sons, Bhagwan Singh, r_,al Singh and Sunder Singh. Bhagwan Singh died issueless some years ago and disputes arose between Lal Singh and his brother Sundar Singh in regard to the division of the property of Bhagwan Singh. Sunder Singh was in possession of some of his landed 1962 v. The State of -Punjab. }.fahajan J. 420 SUPREME COURT REPOR'fS [1953) properties and Lal Singh obtained a number of decrees against him but Sunder Singh declined to restore possess
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.