JAYENDRA VISHNU THAKUR versus STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 591 · Decided: 11-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

J 
I 
' 
i 
-~ 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 591 
JAYENDRA VISHNU THAKUR 
V. 
STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA AND ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 981 of 2009) 
MAY 11, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
PENAL 
CODE, 
1860/EVIDENCE ACT, 
18721 
TERRORIST 
AND 
DISRUPTIVE 
ACTIVITIES 
A 
B 
(PREVENTION) ACT, 1987: 
C 
Sections 299133114(5) - Recording of evidence of witness 
in absence of accused - Relevancy of certain evidence for 
proving the truth of facts stated therein - Interpretation of. 
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: 
Any word given in a statutory provision should ordinarily 
be given the same meaning while construing the other · 
provisions thereof where the same term has been used. 
D 
E 
Interpretation of the provisions of Section 299 
Cr.P.C., Section 33 of Evidence Act, 1871 and Section 
14(5) of TADA relating to recording of evidence of 
witnesses in absence of accused and relevancy of certain 
evidence for proving the truth of facts stated therein, is 
F 
involved in the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Even in the United States of America, the 
G 
accused's right under the Sixth Amendment is not 
absolute. The right of confrontment of an accused is 
subject to just exceptions, including an orderly behaviour 
in the courtroom. In case of disruptive behaviour an 
591 
H 
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 
accused can be asked to go outside the court room so 
~\... 
A 
long he does not undertake to behave in an orderly 
manner. [Para 13] [610-C-D] 
Jack R. Goldberg v. John Kelly 25 L. Ed 2d 287 and 
B Greene v. Mc Elorey 3 L Ed 2d 1377, referred to. 
2. An accused is, always entitled to a fair trial. He is 
• 
also entitled to a speedy trial but then he cannot interfere 
I 
with the governmental priority to proceed with the trial 
c 
which would be defeated by conduct of the accused that 
prevents it from going forward. In such an event several 
options are open to courts. What, however, is necessary 
is to maintain judicial dignity and decorum. [Para 13] [610-
D-F] 
D 
3. A right to cross-examine a witness, apart from 
.1-
being a natural right is a statutory right. Section 137 of 
the Evidence Act provides for examination-in-chief, cross-
examination and re-examination. Section 138 of the 
Evidence Act confers a right on the adverse party to 
E cross-examine a witness who had been examined in chief, 
subject of course to expression of his desire to the said 
effect. But indisputably such an opportunity is to be 
granted. An accused has not only a valuable right to 
represent himself, he has also the right to be informed 
~ 
F thereabout. If an exception is to be carved out, the statute 
must say so expressly or the same must be capable of 
being inferred by necessary implication. [Para 13] (610-
H; 611-A-B] 
G 
Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India, (2008) 2 SCC 417, 
referred to. 
~ 
State of Illinois v. William Allen 397 US 337, referred to. 
4. It is also beyond any cavil that the provisions of 
H 
JAYENDRA VISHNU THAKUR v. STATE OF 
593 
MAHARAHSTRA AND ANR 
_.,, 
Section 299 of the Code must receive strict interpretation, 
A 
and, thus, scrupulous compliance thereof is imperative 
in character. [Para 14] [611-C-D] 
5. It is a well known principle of interpretation of 
statute that any word defined in the statutory provision 
B 
should ordinarily be given the same meaning while 
construing the other provisions thereof where the same 
• 
term has been used. Under Section 3 of the Evidence Act 
• 
· like any other fact, the prosecution must prove by leading 
evidence and a definite categorical finding must be c 
arrived at by the court in regard to the fact required to be 
proved by a statute. Existence of an evidence is not 
enough but application of mind by the court thereupon 
as also the analysis of the materials and/or appreciation 
thereof for the purpose of placing reliance upon that part 
D 
~ ... 
of the evidence is imperative in character. [Para 14] [611-
D-F] 
6. Indisputably both the conditions contained in the 
first part of Section 299 of -the Code must be read 
E 
conjunctively and not disjunctively. Satisfaction of one of 
the requirements should be not sufficient. It was thus, 
obligatory on the part of the court to arrive at a finding 
1 
on the basis of the materials brought on record by 
-' 
bringing a cogent evidence that the jurisdictional facts 
existed so as to enable the court concerned to pass an 
F 
appropriate order on the application filed by the Special 
Pub

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