LexBANWARI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
191iZ
180 SUPRElm OOURT REPoRTS (1962] SOPP.
BANWARI
v.
:::.TATE OF UTTAH PRADESH
( J. L. I\ APUR, A. K. SA1uu.u and i{AOHUBA/~
DAYAL, JJ.)
<...:rimiu'!'I 1~rial-1'hret co1n.mitment orders for three offence~
-uffe11cts. lna&/e at one trial-Se<Jaiu11a Judge recording all
tt'1dence m one tri<il-Leyality of trial-Charges-l'oll'er of
1:Je.'>Si~1wJudge to subat1'tute churycs framed
by Cum11iilli11g
Alugistrak-.Jl urder-(}onunon Intention-Indian 1'enal Code,
1860 (Act .XLV of 1860), s. 34-Co<k of Criminal Procedun,
1~98 (V of 1898), "· l!26, 234, 23.9, ~37.
llanwari armed with a gun and Rani Charan arrnc<l with
an axe were going together when they met Lakhan.
After
some talk Banwari shot at and killed Lakhan.
They then
proccc<lt:d together for son1e distance \\-·hen they met Bhag\van.
After some talk llanwari shot at and killed Jlhagwan.
There-
upon the villagers started pursuing them and they ran and
Bany..·ari shot aud injured Narayan.
One report was lodged
of the three incidents and the police sent up thre.e charge
sheets. 'l'he !vlagistrace ma:de three orders of commitrncnt,
framing charges against the two appellants under s- 302 and
s.307 rrad withs- 34 Indian Penal <':ode respectively in respect
of the first incident, under s. 302 read with s. 34 in respect of
the second incident and under s. 307 read with s. 34 in respect
of the third incident.
The
Se~sions Judge framed certain·
charges describing thern as a1nen<lcd charges, undrr s. 302
read with s. 34 against both accused for the murder of Lakhan,
under s. 302 against Banwafi for the murder of Bhagv:an and
under s. 307 against Banwari for the attcn1pted murder of
Narayan. He recorded the entire evidence in one trial and
by a comn1on judgment convicted Ban"·ari and Ram Charan
and scntcncetj the former to death and the latter to in1prison·
ment for life. The appellants contended that the trials were
illegal as the procedure followed by the Sessions Judge w,15
not v.·arrantcd by law, that Ram .Charan's convictio11 for the
murder of Bhagwan and attempted murder of ·Narayan· \Vas
bad as he was not tried for those offences and that the convic-
tion of Ram Charan with the aid of s. 34 was bad as he had
no common intention with Banwari to com1nit any of the
offences.
Held, that though the procedure of recording evidence
in one trial with respect to offences which were the .:>ubjcct of
diffrrent trials was unwarranted the trials were not vitiated
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
181
on this account. The procedural error was curable under
ss. 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The three offences with which the appellants were
charged were of the same kind and one joint trial of those
offeqces was justifiable under s. 234 Code of Criminal Proce-
dure. A joint trial of both the appellants for the three
offences each of which was alleged to be committed by them
jointly within twelve months would have been justifiable
under ss. 234 and 239 of the Code.
Even if there were three
committal orders the Sessions Judge could try the accused at
one trial if the provisions of ss. 234 to 239 permitted a joint
trial.
In the present case the Sessions Judge did not purport
to consolidate the committal orders and try the accused at one
trial though really that is what actually happened' when he
recorded evidence in one case only and presumably examined
the accused also once. The trial was not vitiated by any
procedural error nor had any prejudice been shown to have
been caused to the appellants.
Payare Lal v. The State of Punjab, (1962) 3 S.C.R. 328,
referred to.
Ram Charan had been charged for all the offences for
which he was convicted.
The s0-c,lled amended charges
framed by the Sessions Judi;e were really additional charges and
not in substitution of the charges framed by the Mclgistrate.
The Sessions J ud!!e had no power to drop any charges under
which the accused had brcn committed for trial ; he could
frame a charge, or add to or otherwise alter the charge as
the case may be where a person was committed for try without
a charge or with an imperfect or erroneous charge.
But the
conviction of Ram Charan could not be sustained. He did
nothing in any of the three incidents. The facts and circum·
stances of the case did not establish that he h~d a common
intention 'vi th Banwari to commit any of the offences.
There
was no allegation that he had enmity with any of the victims
or that there was anExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.