SIDHESWAR GANGULY versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 749 · Decided: 24-10-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
749 
but as rightly pointed out by the learned trial magis-
J9S7 
trate, 
the appellant cannot be criminally liable Ra""'~ Nadar 
for being reckless or unwise in carrying on his busi-
The ;iare of 
ness. In our opinion, therefore, the le~rned Judge 
Madras 
below was in error in characterizing the order of 
Sinha J. 
acquittal as a perverse one. The learned Judge's deci-
sion is based on an erroneous assumption that the 
appellant was bound by law to disburse the amounts 
collected in a particular competition amongst the 
prize winners of that competition. But it has not been 
pointed out by what proce~s that conclusion was 
reached. Nor has the learned counsel for the respon-
dent brought any statutory or other rule to our notice 
casting an obligation on the appellant to appropriate 
the entry fees in a particular manner. That being so, 
it must be held that misappropriation has not been 
made out either on evidence or as a matter of law. 
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order 
passed by the High Court set aside and the order of 
acquittal passed by the trial c?urt is restored. 
Appeal allowed. 
SIDHESWAR GANGULY 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(B. P. SINHA and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) 
Jury trial-Written statement filed by acCU!Jed-If 
admissible-Rape-Evidence of prosecutrix-Corroboration 
of-Misdirection to jury-Age of prosecutrix-Certificate 
of fitness, Grant of-Principles-Constitution of India, Art. 
134(1) (c). 
Appellant was tried by the Sessions Judge and a jury 
on the charge of committing rape. On the question of the 
age of the girl expert medical evidence was produced but 
no birth certificate was available. The father of the girl 
could not be examined as he was dead. According to the 
Police evidence the whereabouts of the mother were not 
traceable but the Police Officer who himself made the 
inquiry was not produced. As regards the commission of 
the rape the girl herself was examined and there was the 
evidence of another girl and some circumstantial evidence. 
The accused filed.a written statement but the Judge refused 
J9S7 
October 24 
750 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
19S7 
to read it out to the iury. The jury returned a unanimous 
S .,L -G uJ verdict of guilty and the Judge, accepting the verdict con-
iuneswor ang y 
· 
d th 
ll 
. 
. ' 
v 
v1cte 
e appe ant and sentenced hun to 5 years ngorous 
The S1~1< of 
imprisonment. 
An appeal to the High Court was 
West Bengal 
summarily rejected. But the High Court granted "leave to 
appeal" on the ground that on account of tj}e summary 
dismissal'of the appeal appellant did not have the satisfac-
tion of feeling that he had been fully heard and that justice 
should also appear to have been done by a full considera-
tion of the evidence by the appellate court. 
Held that, the certificate granted by the High Court 
amounts to a condemnation of the practice of summary dis-
missal of appeals, especially in jury trials. Such practice 
prevails in most High Courts and has the sanction of statute 
law. No certificate should be granted on a mere question 
of fact nor in a case where there are no complexities of 
law involved requiring an authoritative interpretation by 
the Supreme Court. 
Haripada Dey v. The State of West Bengal, [1956] S.C.R. 
639, followed. 
There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure 
requiring a Session Judge to accept a written statement 
filed by an accused. If such a written statement is allowed 
to be used at a Sessions tirial by jury, it may throw the door 
open to irrelevant and inadmissible matter and cast an ad-
ditional burden on the Judge of separating admissible from 
inadmissible statements. 
The Judge had rightly refused 
the written statement to be read to the jury. 
There is no rule of law or practice that there must be 
corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix, before 
conviction for rape. If the jury had been appraised of the 
necessity of corroboration, it was for the jury to decide 
whether or not it would convict on the uncorroborated 
testimony of the prosecutrix in the particular circumstances 
of the case before it. 
Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan, (1952] S.C.R. 386 
followed. 
There was no misdirection on the question of the age of 
the girl. The Sessicm Judge had pointed out the severa1 
items of evidence to the jury. The failure of the prosecu-
tion to examine the Police Officer who actually made in-
quiry into the whereabouts of the mother does no

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