LexBABLU KUMARAND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAIR AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2015] 8 S.C.R. 512 BABLU KUMARAND ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAIRANDANR. (Criminal Appeal No.914 of2015) JULY20, 2015 (DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] c Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.401 - Revisional jurisdiction - Power of High Court to set aside order of acquittal - Informant alleged that appellants killed the victim-deceased - Trial court ordered issue of summons to the witnesses and warrants against the informant- Trial court o after numerous dates ultimately recorded that witnesses were not present and ordered acquittal - High Court held that there was no service report or execution of warrant against the informant and there was no service report to show that either summons were served on other witnesses or E warrants issued against witnesses were executed and it remanded the matter to trial court for retrial - On appeal, held: The Court is under legal obligation to see that the witnesses who have been cited by prosecution are produced by it or.if summons are issued, they are actually served on F the witnesses - If the Court is of opinion that the material witnesses have not been examined, it should not allow the prosecution to close the evidence - In the instant case, High Court upon perusal of record held that notices were not served on the witnesses - High Court would be justified to G interfere with an order of acquittal if the trial court has wrongly shut out the evidence which the prosecution wishes to produce - The order of High Court cannot be regarded as faulty. H 512 BABLU KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR 513 Criminal trial: Concept of fair trial - Obligation of courts A - Held: It is the duty of the court to see that neither the prosecution nor the accused play truancy with the criminal trial or corrode the sanctity of the proceeding - The court is duty bound to see that neither the prosecution nor the defence take unnecessary adjournments and take the trial B under their control and to see that the witnesses who.have been cited by the prosecution are produced by it or if summons are issued, they are actually served on the witnesses - Public Prosecutor who conducts the trial, has a C statutory duty to perform - The Court also is not expected to accept the version of the prosecution as if it is sacred - Non-application of mind by the trial court has the potentiality to lead to the paralysis of the conception of fair trial. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1. A scrutiny of the orders passed by the trial Judge from time to time showed that the trial Judge has really not taken pains to verify whether the summons were actually served on the witnesses or not. The High E Court rightly observed that the trial court did not also try to verify from the record whether the warrants had been executed or not. He had directed the prosecution to prod.uce the witnesses and mechanically recorded that the witnesses were not present and proceeded to F direct the prosecution to keep them present. Eventually, the trial Judge passed an a,cquittal order under Section 232 CrPC. [Para 6) [520-E-G] K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR G 1962 SC 1788: 1963 SCR 412- relied on Abinash Chandra Bose v. Bimal Krishna Sen (1963) 3 SCR 564: AIR 1963 SC 316 - distinguished. Ayodhya Dube v. Ram Sumer Singh 1981 Supp. SCC H 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 8 S.C.R. A 83; Sunil Kumar Pal v. Phota Sheikh (1984) 4 SCC 533; Bansi Lalv. Laxman Singh 1986 (3) SCR 191: (1986) 3 SCC 444; Satyajit Baneljee & Ors. v. State ofWB. & Ors. 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 294: (2005) 1 SCC 115; Mary Pappa Jebamani v. Ganesan & Ors. 2013 (11) SCR1042: 2013 (15) SCALE B 154; Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B. P. Singh and others v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 495: (2002) 6 SCC 650; Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2010 (4) SCR 103: (2010) 6 SCC 1; Rattiram v. C State of M.P. 2012 (3) SCR496: (2012) 4 SCC 516; Natasha Singh v. CBI 2013 (5) SCR 539 : (2013) 5 sec 741; J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Kamataka (2014) 2 SCC 401; NHRC v. State of.Gujarat 2009 (7) SCR 236 : (2009) 6 $CC 767; State of Kamataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR D 359: (1999) 8 SCC 715; Ram Bali v. State of U.P. 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 195: (2004) 10 sec 598; Kamel Singh v. State of M.P. 1995 (2) Suppl. seR 629: (1995) 5 sec 518; Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal 2012 (10) SCR 157: (2012) 8 SCC 263; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Another v. St'3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.