LexSHYAM NARAYAN RAM versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1726 : 2024 INSC 800 Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc. Crminal Appeal No(s). 4287-4289 of 2024 21 October 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court fell in error in remanding the matter to Trial Court and giving liberty to the accused to cross-examine a prosecution witness and allowing the prosecution to lead further evidence in the form of formal witnesses. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.294 – The High Court while allowing the appeal filed by accused persons and remanding the matter back to Trial Court recorded – Accused did not get a fair trial as their counsel had admitted the genuineness of documents filed by the prosecution and had dispensed with its formal proof. Held: It is not for any error or oversight of defence counsel that they had admitted the genuineness of the police papers by dispensing formal proof of the same, rather the defence had repeatedly confirmed their stand of admitting the genuineness of the documents – As per Section 294(3) of CrPC – where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under CrPC without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed – It is undisputed that the Defence Counsel admitted the genuineness of the documents presented by prosecution – While allowing the appeal Hon’ble Supreme Court differentiated Munna Pandey vs. State of Bihar (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1103, as the issue in the said case was fair trial and not application of Section 294 CrPC – Thus, Hon’ble Supreme Court held, Hon’ble High Court fell in error by remanding matter back to Trial Court for cross-examination of witnesses – Hon’ble * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1727 Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc. Supreme Court does not find any error in the judgment of the Trial Court considering the defence repeatedly continued to admit the genuineness of the prosecution documents exempting them from formal proof – Appeals allowed, impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the criminal appeals before the High Court are restored, to be heard and decided afresh on merits on the basis of material on record. Case Law Cited Sonu alias Amar v. State of Haryana [2017] 8 SCR 151 : (2017) 8 SCC 570; Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana [2015] 12 SCR 234 : (2016) 15 SCC 485; Akhtar v. State of Uttaranchal [2009] 5 SCC 771 : (2009) 13 SCC 722 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Remanding case back to Trial Court; Admission of documents; Fair Trial; Section 294 of CrPC. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 4287-4289 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CRLA No. 4982, 5346 and 5347 of 2019 Appearances for Parties Divyesh Pratap Singh, Ms. Shivangi Singh, Amit Sangwan, Ms. Sneha Chandna, Advs. for the Appellant. Ajay Kumar Misra, A.G./Sr. Adv., Garvesh Kabra, Avanish Deshpande, C B Gururaj, Animesh Dubey, Ms. Archita Prajapati, K P Singh, M/s. Gururaj & Nayak, Sunil Kumar Singh, Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Sandeep Lamba, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Respondents. 1728 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. By means of these appeals, the informant-appellant has assailed the correctness of the judgment and order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.4982/2019, 5346/2019 and 5347/2019 whereby the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court dated 15/16th July, 2019 and had remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the same afresh and that the matter be retried from the stage of testimony of PW 2 onwards. Further a direction was issued that the authors of the exhibited documents liable to establish the authenticity of the same would be cross-examined by the defence, and that the trial would proceed on day to day basis and shall conclude on or before 31st May, 2024. Further, the appellants before the High Court were to be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two heavy sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. They were further l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.