MACHANDER, SON OF PANDURANG versus STATE OF HYDERABAD

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 524 · Decided: 27-09-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIVIAN BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1955 
~•plnoHT21 
524 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
MACHANDER, SON OF PANDURANG 
ti. 
STATE OF HYDERABAD. 
[1955] 
[VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS and B. P. SINHA JJ.] 
Examination 
of the accused-Duty of trial court-Failure to 
examine accused on material 
points-Effect-Acquittal-Code of 
Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), 1. 342. 
The appellant was put up on his trial on a charge of murder. 
The trial continued for 4! years. His brother who was a co-accused 
absconded. The evidence against the appellant was circumstantial. 
His confession, made 8 days after his arrest, led to certain discover-
ies but he was never questioned about it by the trial court under s. 
342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court excluded 
the confession fro!ll the evidence, upheld the conviction but altered 
the death sentence to one of rigorous imprisonment for life. The 
Supreme Court took the view that the High Court was right in ex-
cluding the confession from the evidence and the conviction was un-
~ustainablc on the evidence on record. Held, that in the particular 
facts of the case the omission to examine the accused under s. 342 
of the Code was no mere technicality and it would. be unjust to the 
accused to remand the case for a retrial and the order of conviction 
and sentence passed on him must be set aside. 
That while it is no doubt incumbent on the court to sec that 
no guilty person escapes, it is still more its duty to sec that justice 
is not delayed and accused persons indefinitely harassed. The scales 
must be held even between the prosecution and t~ e accused. 
That it is imperative that 
Magistrates and 
Sessions Judges 
should remember the duty that s. 342 of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure imposes on them of questioning the accused person fairly and 
properly telling him in clear and simple language the case he has to 
meet and the material points made against him so that he can, if he 
so desires, explain and meet them. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JuR1smcnoN : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 9 of 1955. 
Appeal by 
special leave 
from the Judgment and 
Order dated the 26th September, 1951, of the Hydera-
bad High Court in Criminal Confirmation N?. 638/6 
of 1951 and Criminal Appeal 
No. 770 of 1951, arising 
out of the Judgment and Order dated the 27th June, 
1951, of the Q>urt of the Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, 
in Criminal Case No. 12/8 of 1951. 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
525 
R. Patnaik for the appellant. 
1955 
Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Gokha/.e 
dent. 
for the respon-
Muliantllr, Son 
efP~ 
v. 
1955. 
September 
27. 
The 
Court was delivered by 
Judgment of 
the 
91'* of H,U,dbad 
BosE J.-This is another of those cases in 
which 
Courts are compelled to acquit 
because Magistrates 
and Sessions Judges 
fail to appreciate the importance 
of section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code and 
fail to carry out 
the duty that is cast upon them of 
questioning the accused properly and fairly, bringing 
home to his mind in clear and simple 
language the 
exact case he has to meet 
and each 
material point 
that is sought to be made against him, and of afford-
ing him a chance to explain them if he can and so 
desires. 
Had the Sessions Judge 
done that 
in this 
case it is possible that we would not have been obliged 
to acquit. 
The facts 
are 
simple. 
The appellant 
Machandcr 
was charged 
with 
the murder of one Manmath. 
Machander's brother Gona 
was also challaned but as 
he absconded he could not be tried. 
The appellant and the deceased and Gona reside in 
the same village. 
There was some ill-feeling between 
the appellant and the deceased and it can be accepted 
that Gona shared his brother's sentiments 
because, 
so far as the latest 
cause for enmity goes, 
Gona is 
equally 
concerned; and 
this 
also 
applies to Pandu, 
the appellant's father, and Bhima, another brother. 
The causes for enmity are the following. 
In or about the year 1947 the appellant appears to 
have stolen a pair of bullocks and a cart belonging to 
the deceased. The deceased prosecuted him for the 
theft and also 
instituted 
a civil suit for the price of 
the cart and bullocks. He succeeded 
in both cases. 
The appellant 
was convicted 
of theft 
and sent to 
jail. a decree 
was 
also 
passed 
against him for 
Rs. 520 and that decree was duly executed. 
We now come to the events 
immediately preced-
ing the murder. The appellant 
and his family took 
forcible possession 
of some 
land belonging to the 
19~5 
}J.achandtr, Son 
of Paniurang 
v. 

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