DOONGAR SINGH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 28-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 222 
DOONGAR SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2045-2046 of2017) 
NOVEMBER 28. 2017 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973: 
ss.309 and 164 -Adjournment of criminal proceedings - In 
a murder case, after exami11atio11-in-chief of the star witness. mat/er 
adjourned for about four months - Ajier recording part evidence. 
m<1tler again a<fjourned - Held: In a criminal case of the nature as 
in the present case, trial court has to be mindful that for protection 
of wimesses and also in the interest of justice, mandate of s.309 
has to be complied with and eddence should be recorded on 
co/1/inuous basis - Presiding Officers of trial courts conducting 
criminal trials should be minciful of not giving adjoummen/s qfter 
co111111e11cement of rhe evidences in serious cri111ina/ cases - lt is 
uecessalJ' in the interest ojjustice that e;1e-u1il11esses are got recorded 
during investigation itse/( ul.d 64 by audiu-1•ideo electronic means -
Criminal Tri<4. 
Stale of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and Others (2001) 
4 SCC 667 : [2001) 2 SCR 85~: Mulul. Khalid v. State 
of 11'.B. (2002) 7 SCC 334 : )20021 2 Suppl. SCR 31; 
Vinud Kumar v. State of Punjah (2015) 3 SCC 220 
[2015) l SCR 504 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
[2001] 2 SCR 854 
[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 31 
[20151 l SCR 504 
relied on 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 6 
Para 7 
Para 8 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 2045-2046of2017. 
222 
DOONGAR SINGH & ORS. v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
223 
From the Judgment and Order datctl 12.05.2015 of the High Court 
A 
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCRA Nos. 872 and 1066 of 
2011. 
WITH 
Crl.A. No. 2047 of20l7. 
S. S. Shamshery, AAG. Sushi! Kuma Jain, Sr. Adv., Puncct Jain, 
Ms. Christi Jain, Harsh Jain, Abhinav Gupta, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Ms. 
Parijat Bhardwaj, Ms. G. M. Padma Priya, T. Mahipal, A<lvs. for the 
appearing parties. 
Cavcator-in-person. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
l. Delay condonctl. Leave granted. 
B 
c 
2. For the murder of one Bhagwan Singh at Sikar, Rajasthan, on 
D 
27'" May, 2005, 20 persons were tried. Nine have been convicted 
concw'fently by the trial court and the High Cowt. They are the appellants. 
Others have either been acquittetl or have died. 
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length 
and also perused the record. We do not find any infirmity in the orders of E 
the cou1t below calling for our interference under Article 136 of the 
Constitution of!ndia. The appeals arc, accordingly, dismissed. 
4. Before parting with this matter, we must record a disturbing 
feature in the conduct of the trial of the present case. After recording 
examination-in-chief of the star witnes>, PW-14 Prahhu Singh, on 13'" 
April, 2010, the matter was adjourned on the request of defence counsel 
to 25'" August, 20 I 0 i.e. for about more than four months. After that, 
· part evidence of the witnesses was recorded on 241h September, 2010 
an.d the matter was again adjourned to 11 '" October, 20 I 0. Before that, 
four witnesses of the same family in their statements recorded on 1 o•h 
April, 2010 had become hostile. 
5. In a criminal case of this nature, the trial court has to be mindful 
that for the protection of witness and also in the interest of justice the 
mandate of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. has to be complied with and 
evidence should be recorded on continuous basis. If this is not done, 
F 
G 
H 
224 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] ll S.C.R. 
there is every chance of witnesses succumbing to the pressure or threat 
of the accused. 
6. This aspect of the matter has received the attention of this 
Court on number of occasions earlier. Jn St11te of U.P. ••er.ms Shttmbhu 
Ntttll Si11glt 1111d Others' this Court observed it was a pity that the 
sessions court adjourned the matter for a long interval after 
commencement of evidence, contrary to the mandate of Section 309 of 
the Cr.P.C. Once examination of witnesses begins, the same has to be 
continued from day-to-day unless evidence of the available witnesses is 
recorded, cx~ept when adjournment beyond the following day has to be 
granted for reasons recorded. This Court observed: 
"12. Tims, the legal posi1ion is that once examination of 
H ,·,,:,:sse\· _11arll!cl, the court has ro continue the trial fro111 da.v 
to da.v until all tt•itnesses in atten(fance have heen exa1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.