CHITTARANJAN DAS versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 22-04-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
-
, 
. 
3 S.C.R . 
SUPRE!UE COURT REPORTS 
237 
CHITTARAN.JAN DAS 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, 
and K. C. DAS GUPTA .JJ.) 
Jury Trial-Charge of rape-ParticularB a. to time and 
place if mmt be mentioned-High Court summraily di11111'8sing 
the Appeal-Propriety-Charge to jury-Misdirection~Previous 
statements of the prosecutri:x:, if aubstantive evidence-Verdict if 
and when preverse, Indian Penal Code, (Act 45 of 1860), ""· 
109, 376-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898(Act V of 1898) 
••· 222(1), 421-lndian Evidence Act, 1872(1of1872), B. 145. 
The appellant was the Zonal Officer of the Refugee 
Rehabilitation office and the co-accused Ganesh De was a peon 
in the said office. One Sandhyarani, a minor girl was staying 
with her mother in the Refugee colony. She was induced by 
one Manibala to go to her p1ace with a promise for a nurse's 
job. In course of time, she was taken to the appellanf s house 
in about the middle of November 1958 on the representation 
that he wanted to give her employment. The appellant held 
out the hope of a job for her and managed to revish her. 
Similarly, she was taken to the house of the appellant on two 
or three occasions within a period of one month and each time 
he had sexual intercourse with her. Sandhya's mother filed a 
complaint which was investigated and she was recovered from 
the house of Ganesh De. Sandhya's statement was recorded 
and cha\lan was forwarded which specified the dates on which 
the appellant had raped Sandhya. The charge was framed 
against the appellant on three counts and in the three counts, 
periods were mentioned within which the appellant was alleged 
to have committed rape on Sandhya. The first period was 
between 18.11.1958 to 21.11.1958, second was 1.12.1958 to 
6.12.1958 and the third was 9.12.1958 to 15.12.1958. Ganesh 
De was charged under s. 376 read withs. 109 of the Indian 
Penal Code. They were tried by the City Sessions Court with 
the aid of jury. The jury returned a verdict of guilty against 
the appellant in respect of 'all the three counts which was 
accepted by the Sessions Judge and the appellant was convicted 
and sentenced under s. 376 to unclergo rigorous imprisonment 
for four years on the first charge. No separate sentence was 
J96S 
.4;ril 22. 
1963 
CMt.t•ra11j-.n Das 
•• 
. St•I• oj Wtsl Bn1•I 
238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964JVOi. 
awarded in respect of the other charges. 
Ganesh De was also 
sentenced to a similar period of impri<onment. The appellant 
preferred an appeal, which was summarily dismissed by a 
Division Bench of the High Court. The appellant then obtaia-
cd a certificate ·under Art. !34(l)(c) of the Constitution, pence 
this appeal. 
Held that where it is possible to specify precisely the 
necessary particulars required by s. 222(1), the prosecution 
ought to mention the said ·particulars in the charge but where 
the said particulars canrot b~ precisely specified in the charge 
having regard to the nature of the information available to the 
prosecution, failure to mention such particulars may not invali-
date the charge. 
In dealing with the question as to whether the charge 
framed in a criminal trial has contravened s. 222(1), the court 
will have to examine all the relevant facts and if it appears to 
the Court that having regard to them, the charge could and 
_ought to have been framed more precisely, the court may reach 
that conclusion and then enquire whether the defective charge 
has led to the prejudice of the accused. The charge framed 
in the present case did not contravene the requirement of s. 
22(1),2 and was therefore, valid. 
Ali Hyder v. Emperor, (1939) 40 Cr. L.J. 280, held in-
applicable. 
Held further, that the position under s. 421 is clear and 
unambiguous. If the High Court in dealhig with criminal 
appeals takes the view that there is no substance in the appeal, 
it is not necessary that it should record reasons for its conclu-
sion in summarily dismissing it. Therefore, the High Court 
was not right in granting certificate to the appellant on the 
ground that his appeal should not have been summarily dis- . 
missed by another Division Bench of the High Court; 
M'UBhtak Htll!sain v. State of Bombav, A.I.R. 1953 S.C.282 
and Shriekantiah Ramayya Muniaipalli v. State of Bombay, 
A.J.R. 1955 S.C. 287, distinguished. 
Held further that the requirement as to corroboration in 
regard to the evidence of a prosecutrix had been elaborately 
explained by the Sessi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.