RAMESHWAR DAYAL AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 59 · Decided: 15-02-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'I 
-
RAMESHWAR DAYAL AND ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
February 15, 1978 
[S, MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
59 
Con\fitution of India, Art 136, principles for interference by Supre1ne Court, 
Criminal Procedure Code, Ss. 540 and 162--S. 540 exa1nination of Sessions 
JudRe by High Court, desirability of-Oppon11nity for rebuttal of fresh evidence, 
ivh_ether nccessary-S. 162, strucment vf In1·estigati11g o/j'icer in inquest report, 
whether ad.'11issible in evidence. 
A 
B 
A long standing enmity bet\l..'een Baburam and Munnalal, triggered by proceed-
ings u/s 107/117 Cr.P.C., initiated by them against each other, resulted in an 
C 
attack on Baburam's party, lby Munnalal's party, in which Baburam died. 
The 
appellants were convicted, inter alia, u/s 302/149 I.P.C·., 
and 
sentenced 
to 
imprisonment for life. 
The facturn of the recovery of four live cartridges by the Investigating Officer 
at the spot, was challenged by the accused at the appellate stage. The High 
Court examined the, Sessions Judge and the Investigating Officer u/s 540 Cr.P.C. 
but .denied the appellants an opportunity to adduce evidence to rebut this fresh 
D 
evidence. 
Dismissing thc1 appeals on merits, after completely excluding the· evidence of 
the witnesses examined by the High Court u/s 540 Cr.P.C., the Cou.rt 
HELD: 
1. The princioles on the basis of which this Court would interfere in an 
appeal by speciaf leave are as follows:-
1. That this Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact 
based on pure appreciation of evidence even if it were to take a differ-
ent vie\V on the evidence; 
2. That the c·ourt will not normally enter into a reapprt1isement or review 
of the evidence, unless the assessment of the High Court is vitiated by 
an error of law or procedure or- is bafed on error of record, misreading 
of evidence or is inconsistent with the evidence, for instance, where 
the ocular evidence is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence 
and so on; 
3. That the Court would not enter into credibility of the evidence with a 
view to substitute its own opinion for that of the High Court; 
E 
F 
4. That the Court would interfere where the· High Court has arrived at a 
finding of fact in disregard of a judicial process-, princip1cs of natural 
justice or a fair hearing or has <1cted in violation of a mandatorv 
provision of law or procedure resu1'ting in serious prejudice or injustice 
G 
to the accused; 
5. This Court might also interlere \vhere on the proved facts wrong infer-
ences of law h~ve been drawn or v;•here the conclusions of the High 
Court are man1festly perverse and based on no evidence''. 
[68C-GJ 
Dalbir Kaur and Ors. v, State of Puniab, [1977] I S.C.R, 280; followed. 
2. Judges should not'be allowed to become witnesses in cases which they 
H 
decide, otherwise that would lead to most anomalous results and would unde:r-
rnine the· Ct?nfidence of t~e people· in the _judiciary. 
A Judge has to decide the 
case acconling to the evidence and the circumstances before him and it cannot 
I 
60 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978i 3 s.c.R. 
A 
be aIJowed to fill up gaps left by the prosecution or the defence by giving staite ... 
ment on oath before a _Court of law. 
Under section 540 of the Cr. P.C. the 
}ligh Court may examine the Sessions Judge or the Trial Court, when very 
necessary, on very rare occasions where all other 
remedies 
are 
exhau3led. 
f64D-H, 65Al 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Tlie .Most Noble the D11ke of Buccleuch and Queensberry and the Afetro~ 
politon Board of Works 
(1871-2) VE and I, Appeal Cases 418; 
Regina v. 
Gazard, 173 E.R,, 633, applied. 
3. The condition of giving an opportunity to the accused to rebut any fresh 
evidence sought to be adduced ·against him either at the trial or the appellate 
stage, is implicit under section 540 of the Cr. P.C. and a refusal of the swne 
amounts not only to an infraction of the provisions of the Code, but also of the 
principles of natural justice, and offends the, famous maxim Audi Altcram Partem. 
[65 D-E HJ 
Channufal and Anr. v. Rex, A.I.R. 1949 All. 692, Rangas1vami Naicker v. 
Muruga 1'.,Taicker, A.LR. 1954 Mad. 169; Shugan Chand and Anr. v. Em(1eror, 
A.J.R. 1925 Lahore 531; The Queen v. Assanoollah, 13 S.W.R. 
(Cr!.) 
15; 
approved. 
4. Docu1~1ents like the Inquest report, seizure lists or the site plans consists 
of two parts, one of which is admissible and the other is inadmissible. 
'fhat 
part of such documents which is based on th

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