RAGHUNANDAN versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 92 · Decided: 10-01-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

92 
RAGHUNANDAN 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
January JO, 1974 
(M. H. BEG AND Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Murder-Criminal Procedure Code-Ss.162, 428 and 540-Duty of co.urt to put 
,e5Sential questions-Evidence Act, s. 165-SCfJpe of. 
All the appellants were tried for various offences under the Penal Code. The 
first appellant (Cr. A. 10 of 1973) was held guilty of th.e offence of murder of the de-
ceased by shooting him with a gun while the other appellants Vi'Cre held guilty or 
-0ffences under Ss. 147 and 148, I. P. C. All the appellants were held guilty of offences 
punishable under Ss. 307 and 323 read withs. 149. The first appellant was sentenced 
to death while the others to imprisonment for life. The High Court confirmed the 
sentences. 
Allowing the appeals in part and remitting the cases to the High Court for dis-
posal, 
HELD : Several material points escaped consideration by the High Court. 
In a case of death sentence one would have expected a closer and a more critical 
scrutiny and a fuller discussion by the High Court of the evidence in the case and of 
the material questions arising for decision before it together with its decisions suppor· 
ted by more than what could appear as perfunctory reasoning. [99E;lOOB] 
(1) The more important questions emerging from a reading of the poSt~ 
1nortem report regarding the contents of the stomach of the deceased, 
.-considered in the context of the alleged time of the murder have not 
·been discussed at aU by the High Court. It is precisely questions of this 
kind which, even if the prosecution or the defence counsel omitted to .put, 
the trial court could and should have put to the doctor who conducted the 
post mortem to clear up the position. If the trial Court had failed to consider 
·their importance, the High Court itself could and should have taken furher expert 
medical evidence under Ss. 540 and 428, Cr. P. C. on this question. 
[9F] 
(2) It is true that the ban imposed bys. 162, Cr. P. C. against the use of a state· 
ment of a witness recorded by the police during investigation, appears sweeping and 
wide. But at the same time, the powers of the court under s. 165 of the Evidence 
Act to put any questions to a witness are also couched in very wide terms authoris. 
ing the judge "in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts" to 
"ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties, 
about any fact relevant or irrelevant". The first proviso to s. 165, Evidence Act, 
enacting that, despite the powers of the court to put any question to a witness, the 
judgment must be based upon facts declared by the Act to be relevant, only serves 
to emphasise the width of the power of the court to question a witness. 
The second proviso in this section preserves the privileges of witnesses to rerulic 
to answer certain questions and prohibits only questions which would be considered 
i1nproper under Ss. 148 and 149, Evidence Act. Statements of witnesses made to the 
pOlice during the investigation do not fall under any prohibited category mentioned 
ins. 165, Evidence Act. Ifs. 162 Cr. P. C. was meant to be so wide in its sweep it 
could make a further in,road upon the powers of the judge to put questions under 
s. J65, £\.'!dencc Act. If that was the correct position atJcasts. 162, Cr. P. C. would 
l.1ave said so explicitly. Section 165, Evidence Act was .already on the stu!ute book 
whens. 162, Cr. P. C. 'vas enacted. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
It is certainly quite arguable thats. 162. Cr. P. C. docs an1ount to a prohibition 
11 
~gainst the use even by the court of statements mentioned there. Nevertheless, the 
purpose of the prohibition of s. 162, Cr. P. C. being to prevent unfair use by the 
prosecution of statements made by witnesses to the police during the course of in· 
··vestigation, \Vhile the proviso is intended for the benefit of the defence, it could be 
) 
RAGHUNANDAN 1'. U. P. S'J'.ATE (Beg, J.) 
93 
A 
urged that, in order to secure the ends of justice, the pr"hibition, by taking into account. 
its purpase and the mischief it was designed to prevent as well as its context, must 
be confined in its scope to the use by parties only to a proceeding of statements men-
tioned therein, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The language of s. 162, Cr. P. C., though wide, is not explicit or specific enough 
to extend the prohibition to the use of the wide and special powers of the court to 
question a witness, expressly and explicitly g

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