RAM SHANKAR SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 49 · Decided: 10-10-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
(1) s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
RAM SHANKAR SINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(K. N. \VANcnoo. JC C. DAS GUPTA and 
J. c. SHAH, JJ.) 
49 
Jur!f trial-Refe•enc~ and Appeal-Powtr of High Gourt-
1/ can appraise evidence-Gomple.~ qllestions put to accu&<d--1/ 
and when prejudice the accused-Gode of Criminal Pmcedure, 
1898 (V of 1898), as . .142, 374, 428, 423. 
The appellants and two others were tried by the Court of 
ses~ion sitting ¥:ith a jury for rioting and causing fatal injuries 
to c.ertain persons. 
The jury brought a unanimous verdict of 
guilty against the appellants. The Sessions Judge accepted 
the verdict and sentenced them subject to confirmation by 
the High Court to suffer the penalty of death. The reference 
for confirmation of death sentence and the appeal filed by the 
appellants against the order of conviction and sentence were 
heard by the Hi~h Court which held that the verdict of the 
Jury was vitiated on 
account of misdirection on material 
questions by the Sessions Judge, and thus disregarded the 
v.rdict and proceeded to consider the evidence independently 
of 
the 
V<"rdict 
and 
after an 
elaborate examination 
of the evidence found the appellants guilty of the offences 
punishable under s. 302 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal 
Code and confirmed t!)e sentence of death. 
It was contended that (I) the High Court was not 
competent to appraise the evidence after discarding the verdict 
of the jury and to confirm the sentence of death after modifying 
the order of conviction, (2) where the High C'ourt had held 
that the verdict was vitiated, on account of misdirection or mis-
understanding of Jaw and had set the verdict aside", thr.n _with 
the disappearance of the verdict the order of sentence also 
d issppeared and it was not open to the High Court to confirm 
the sentence and the High Court was bound to order a re-trial 
and (3) that the accused were prejudiced when under s. 342 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, they were asked complex 
questions which could not be understood by them. 
Held, that s. 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
applies to all appeals before the High Court whether from a 
trial by jury or otherwise and when the High Court finds 
that the verdict of the jury is vitiated on account of some error 
of law or misdirection it has full power to deal with the appeal 
in the manner specified in s. 423 of the Code and for that 
purpose it may appraise the evidence to decide what course it 
1951 
October JQ. 
1961 
Ram Shr.nkar Sin~h 
•• 
S1alt of Wtrt 
Br.1(al 
.... ~ 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
t 
will follow, ancl was not hound in exrrcising powers undrr 
s. 423 to order a retrial; it conld rxerrise any of the po\\·ers 
under s. 423(l)(h) . 
l!dd, further, that the powers under ss. 374( 1) and 376 
of the Code are manifestly of wide amplitude and exercise 
thereof is not restricted by the provisions of s. 418( 1) and 
s. 423 of the Code. 
Irrespective of whether the accu<rd who 
is sentenced to death prefers an appeal, tho High Court is 
bound to consider the evidence an<l arrive at an indrpendent 
conclusion as to the guilt or innC">cence of the accused and thi~ 
the High Court must do even if the trial of the arcuscd was 
held by jury. 
In a 
caar~ \\'here the death 
5.enrence is 
in1posed no 
sanctity attachrs to the verdict of the jury. The verdict is not 
binding if the High Court holds on the evidence that the 
order of cr,nviction i!'i not warranted. 
On a reference under 
~. 374 duty Ls imposed upon the High Court to satisfv itself 
that the conviction of the accused i~ justified on the evidencei 
an<l t!:at the sentence of death in the circumstances of the case 
is tlie only appropriate sentence. When dealing with a reference 
under s. 3i4 of the Code the High Court was competent to 
otder a retrial but is not bound to do so in every case tried 
with jury when the vrrdict of the jury is found to be vitiated 
hr.cause of error of law or misdirection. 
The right of trial by jury is an important right conferred 
upon accused persons in the trial of certain serious offences. 
The quostion whether the ar.cuoed having had the benefit of 
a trial by jury should because of misdirection he ordered to 
be retried, or his case be con!lidered on the evidence by the 
appellate cou1 t, is one of discretion and not of right. 
lleUl, also, that the failure to CC1mply with the provi~ions 
of s. 342 of the Code is an irrc'!;ularity and unleS! injus

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