RAM CHANDER versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 25-02-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
12 
RAM CHANDER 
·v. 
:STATE OF HARYANA 
February 25, 1981 
. '. 
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.J · 
Role ofa Judge trying a criminal i;ase explained-Evidence Act, se~tio~ j65 
read with section 172{2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whethef a 'Judg~' in 
a crimi11,al case .. 111ay put any quesfion. t() /~e wiflless and jf so,,,what are its 
/imitations-Ev'illence Act, sectioi1 }!, ~;ope of. 
· · 
·"' 
· 
= ' . ;, ~ 
·~. • 
' 
·L 
'·; 
• 
·•,;'• 
' 
1 
.,,:, · The appellant Ram Cha11der <ind. Mange were· tried by the, learitelf',.:Addi-
tional Sessions Judge, .Jind, for the murder of Dunni. ·Both were convicted under 
s~f<!.J01i 3q2 read with section M 
Inpian Penal Code' a~d SCl)terycef! io in1pri~on­
ment ror life. On appeal the High Court a9quitted ·Mange· but. cc/nfirmed . the 
conviction' and sentence of·kiun ·Chander. 'In appeai hy '.i;pecial leave. it was 
contended lhat the'· conviction alld sentence were· vitiated as the principle' of 
fair . trial 'was ·abandoned by. the Sessions Judge 'who rebuked. the. Witnesses and 
threatened them with prosecution for perjury . and· based his·. c;onviction on such 
eiitmted evidence. 
·." 
. 
• •.. 
. 
. -
. Allowing the ·appcl}l, the Court' · 
' '· 
. 
.·rq 
·~- . .. 
] : . :_..,,.~ 
. ,; 
. 
•• . 
. 
HELD : 1 : I. If a Gdminal Court is 
to be an effective instrument in 
dispensing justice, the presidin.g judge must cease t~ be :a ~pectator and. ~ mere 
recording. lll~chine. !He must become .a ,participant in .the triai by evincing 
inteliigent acli~e)nforest by putting questions fo witnesses 'iii orcter tO a'scertain 
th~ truth. The Court has wide powers and nlust actively partiCipate: in th{ frial 
fo elicit the fruth and·!O proteci the' weak and the innocent.' It is rthe dui:f.,;11wa 
]tidge to discovec the.truth and for that purpose, he may :·"ask . any question; .in 
any.form, at any time, of any witn1>ss, or of the parties, about any fact, .relevant 
or irrelevant". But this he must. clo,· without unduJy. trespassing upon the 
functions of the public prosecutor and the defence'counsel, without any hint· of 
partisanship and without appearing to frighten, coerce, confuse, intimidate or 
bully wilnesse~. ·He must take the prosecution and the .defence with him. The 
Coi1rt, the prosecution and the defence must work as a team whose goal isjustice, 
a team whose captain is !he
0'judge. The judge, ''like the conductor· of a choir, 
itmst, by force of personality, induce his team .. to work in harmony; subdue the 
raucous, encQwage the timid; conspire with the_young, flatter aryd"<>I,<!." (1411, F, 
D; 15E-F] 
~r 
·;'',Sessions J11dg~, Neitore' v. Jntna Rainana Reddy ~nd .. Altl"., LLJC 1972 AP 
-683, approved. "' 
Jones v. N;tional C?al Board, [ 1957] 2 All E.R. 155, quoted with appro~al. 
1 : 2; · In the instan't c'ase·, the questions put by the learned Sessions Judge, 
particularly the threats held out to the witnesses that if they changed their 
H 
statements th~y would involve themselves in prosecution for perjury were certainly 
intimidating, coming as they did from the presiding judge. In an effort to compel 
'• .. RAM CHANDER v. HARYANA (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 
13 
the witnes.scs. to speak ."°·hat he thought must be truth, the learned Sessions Judge, 
very:_ wrongly, firmly rebuked them and vifiually. threatened: them with-, prosecu~ 
tionS rOr pCrjWy: ~- HC left 'bis seat a'.nd Cii'tCred th·e~·riilg.·' The 'Princii)1e' .of "fair 
tnaI".Wa'sabandonCd. [19F-H] 
··'-
1" 
'Jt:'> -
·'~ .;i.; -· 
. 
1 -_.·;i·; " 1
' 
;,,j·'.i..f·r.~"'.: 
-:-.-'.~ ;·, ,-. 
' 
·.-_.·!·.;. ·; :~ ;_.;1-. ;; 
~;.::;·_•1;:·1 
;~,-'.~;-_;_<ii/;:~:.--·.·· ,,·1 
. , '; : : -2.,. ~ lpe Evidence -Act conta_ins d~tailed provisions, dealing . whh. state_ments 
of persons_who cannot. be. called as witne$ses. _and former1 statements. of _pe~ns 
WhO ire called as·wi,tiiCsseS. Th~ PrOvislollS would ipf;ear_iO. becOil?.e ~c:.4uridant 
it thC 'eVidenee· or 3 whriCSs' i~ to be lesie"d iind 3.cCepted or iCiectCd with · rerCrence 
tO -the 'foimer'Stitement Of arioiheC·wnneS~ on the iround. that such·; (ofinCr 'sta~ 
menittnders t1ie evidence highly'. probable -or: improbable.. Even :assd.olliig:· that 
~nd:er .. certain cirqimstanc~s it_ is permissible _t~- use, t_he·_ first_ inf9nnatio:n. Jeport 
und1.'t' the first part of section 11 there is in the present case no question, of invok-
ing the first part Or section 11, which is inapplicable·· sinCc, thC ·nrst inf0rrD.3iiO.ti

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