KIRPAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 992 · Decided: 10-05-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
Chalit1gulia Rama-
chandr iyya 
v. 
Bopp4na Satya-
narayana 
JJas Gupta J, 
·/963 
May IOJ 
992 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
be applied in India is where the requirements of 53A 
are satisfied. 
Quite clearly, s. 53A does not apply 
to the facts of the present case. It must therefore be 
held that the considerations of equity cannot confer 
on Nagayya or his heirs any title in the lands which 
under the statute could be conferred only by a re· 
gistered instrument. 
Our conclusion 
therefore 1s that the High 
r 
Court was right in holding that Nagayya or his 
heirs had acquired no right in the property. The 
appeal is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances 
of the case, we make no order as to costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
KIRPAL SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(B. P. SINHA c . .J., J. c. SHAH & N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR JJ.) 
Criminal Law-Committal proceedings-Powers and duties 
' 
of the Mnqistrate-Desirability to examine all the witne8ses to 
the actual commission of the offence-Code of Criminal Pro· 
cedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), as amended by Act 26 of 1955, 
ss.173, 207A (4). 
The appell~nt was convicted by the Sessions Judge of the 
offence of murder of K and sentenced to death, and the con· 
viction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court. The 
committal proceedings disclosed that the Magistrate committed 
the accused to the Court of 
Session without 
recording the 
evidence of the \\dtnesses to the actual commis~ion of the 
offence. 
Held that under s. 207 A of the Code of Criminal Pro· 
cedure, 1898, as amended by Act 26 of 1955, a Magistrate ha.s • 
_, 
r 
,. 
-
... 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREm COURT REPORTS 
!!93 
been given a discretion in the matter of examination of witnes-
ses not produced by the prosecutor. The prosecutor is ex-
pected ordinarily to examine in the court of the committing 
Magistrate all witnesses to the actual commission of the offence, 
but if without adequate reasons he fails to do so, the Magistrate 
is justified and, in enquiries on charges of serious offences like 
murder, is under a duty to call witnesses who would throw light 
up0n the prosecution case. A Magistrate failing to examine 
witnesses to the actual commission of the offence because 
they arc not produced, without considering whether it is not 
necessary in the intt'rests of justice to rxa1nine such witnesses, 
fai!I in the discharge of his duties. 
The Mcgistratc must apply his mind to the documents 
referred to in s. 173 of the Code and the 1e•timony of witnesses, 
if any, produced by the prosecutor and examined, and consider 
whether in the interests of justice it is necessary to record the 
evidence of other witnesses. 
A Magistrate in committing a person accused of an 
offence for trial has to perform a judicial function which has 
a vital importance in the ultimate trial, and a sJip,hod or 
mechanical dealing with the proceeding must be depncated. 
Shrirar~ Daya Ram v. The Stat• of Bombay, [1961] 
2 S.C.R. 890, considered. 
CRIMIN.AL APPELL.ATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 54of1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment 
and order dated 
September 13, 1962, of the 
Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 877 
of 1962 and Referred No. 70 of 1962 . 
0. P. Rana, for the appellant. 
G. 0. Malh1'r and 0. P. Lal, for the respondent. 
1963. May 10. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
. 
SHAH ].-The appellant Kirpal Singh and 
his two brothers Arjun Singh and Sarwan Singh, 
Klrpol 
s~ngh 
v. 
[tale of U.P. 
Sh.ii I 
i963 
Kirpal Sir.gla 
v. 
S•ot11J U.P. 
Shali J. 
.... 
994 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964] VOL. 
-• 
were tried by the Sessions Judge, Pillibhit for cau-
sing the death of one Karam Singh with gunshot 
injuries in the evening of March 26, 1961 at Village 
Shanti Nagar. The Sessions Judge acquitted Arjun 
Singh and 
Sarwan Singh 
and 
convicted the 
appellant Kirpal Singh of the 
offence 
charged 
against him and sentenced him to suffer the penalty 
of death subject to confirmation by the High Court. 
The High Court of Allahabad confirmed the order 
of conviction and sentence. With special leave, 
Kirpal Singh has appealed to this Court. 
The case for the prosecution was as follows : 
The appellant and his father-in-law Rakkha 
Singh were refugees from West Pakistan. A block of 
agriculturaltland, allotted by the Government to 
Rakkha Singh and the appellant was partitioned 
but no boundary marks were erected on the line 
dividing the lands. In December 1960 there was 
a dispute bet

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