MIR MOHD OMAR & ORS versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 735 · Decided: 08-08-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

--~· 
MIR MOHD: OMAR & ORS: 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
AUGUST 8, 1989 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 278--Recorded 
evidence-Correction-Object of-Not intended to permit a witness to 
resile from his statement-Unsigned correction slips not properly filed-
'\.,_€ffect of. 
. · . 
.. · · ·.· .·· 
··. 
· · · 
Section 313-Examination of accused-Object of-Trial Court-
Whether should consult .or hea1 counsel for the parties-Prosecution 
can invite attention of Court if any incriminating circumstances left out. 
In the Sessions.trial of the appeUants-accused under section 302/ 
34, l.P.C., the prosecution examined 34 witnesses including the Investi-
gation Officer (PW-34). The Trial Court examined the accused under 
section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and recorded their 
statements. thereafter the Public Prosecutor ftled an application for 
re-examination of the first appellant under section 313 which was 
rejected by the Trial Court. 
An unsigned correction slip, without any application and service 
on tlie defence counsel, was also ftled seeking correction in the state-
ment of PW-34. The Trial Court rectified the typographical errors, but 
refused to make other corrections which would have changed the sub-
stantive part of the evidence. 
.The State preferred a Criminal Revision in the High Court which 
stated that the. Trial Court bas not followed proper procedure regard-
ing correction or recorded evidence. The High Court expunged the 
examination under section 313 of all the accused reserving liberty to the 
prosecution to file application for re-examination of PW-34 and 
accepted the demand for transfer of the case. Hence these appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, and reversing the order of the High Cqurt, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: 1. The object of section 278 is two fold: firstly to ensure 
that the evidence of the witness as recorded is accurate and secondly to 
give the witness concerned an opportunity to point out mistakes. If the H 
735 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
119891 3 S.C.R. 
A 
correction •1tu lat by the wltmm Is -
wblch the judge considered 
necessary be will make ii al once as required by sub-seclioa (l), but If 
the correction is such that the judge does not consider necesury, sub-
section (2) requires that a memorandum of the objection be made, and 
the Judge add his remarks, if an)'., thereto. l741E] 
B 
I.I In the instant case, lbe trial judge corrected all the typo- r· 
graphical errors which be considered necesury but refused lo carry out 
the substantive part or his deposition. The S«lioo is not intended lo 
permit a witness lo resile from his statement in the name of correction. 
The trial judge was justified in refusing lo elfed the change which be 
J 
thought was intended lo change the earlier version. He did not make a -,A 
C memorandum as the correction slip was llDSigned and was not properly 
filed. Since the correction slip as weU as the remarks of the trial judge 
...+ 
' 
have become a part of the record, nothing more need be done as the 
provisons of section 278 are substanliaUy complied with. I 7 4 IF-GI 
2. The object of section 3I3 is that the accused may be given an 
D opportunity of explaining each and every circumstance appearing 
against him. The trial judge need not consult or hear the public pro-
secutor or the counsel for the accused as lo the nature of the circumst-
ances or the type of questions to be put lo the accused. It is his duty lo 
·~ ~. 
examine the accused as per law. It is, however, open lo the prosecution 
; 
lo invite the attention of the Court lo any incriminating circumstance 
E 
left out and not put lo the accused. l742C-D] 
F 
G 
2. I In the instant case, after the prosecution bas cw...d the evi-
dence the accused were examined under section 3I3 of the Code. The 
prosecution did not at any stage move the trial judge for recalling PW 
34 for further examination. Therefore t~\¥as no justification for the 
High Court for giving liberty to the p~ution for re:..xaminalion of · 
' 
PW-34 and expunging the examination of, all the accused under section 
313. l742A-74IHJ 
3. In the instant case, as the trial judge bas since retired the 
question of transfer of the case to another Bench of the City Sessions 
Court does not arise. [742E] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No~. 467-468 of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.1989 of the Calcutta 
H 
High Court in Cr!. Revision N

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