STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SINDHI @ RAMAN

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 574 · Decided: 19-02-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

574 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
SINDHI @ RAMAN 
February 19, D75 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.l 
A 
Sec, 374 a11d Sec. 465 of the Cr. P. Code 1898-When does a trial co11c/ude 
if tli.o. Sessions Judg~ T?asses ~eat~ sent enc~ and refers to High Court for con-
B 
firmatwn-Whether It is continuatzon of trial-Interpretation of statute-Liberal 
consm1ction to avoid rep11gna11cy with principles of natural justice. 
The responclent \lias sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge 
for double murder. He did not. file any appeal. The tri..I Judge made u refer-
ence to the High Court .• for confirmation of death ;entence. 
Twc adv,)cates 
were appointed Amicu> Cu.iae to defend the respondent. After interview with 
the respondent the advocates reported to 
th·~ High Court that the respondent 
appeared 
to 
b~ imane. He 
was 
examined 
by 
a· 
Medical 
!Board 
consisting of 3 Psychiatrists. According to the Medical Board he wa; not 
C 
capable of rati(mal thinking or b~haviour. The High Court came to th~: con-
cl1*sion that the resoondent was clearly of unsound mind. 
The High Court, 
therefore, postponed the proceeaings in the confirmation case. 
On l1ppeal to 
this Court by State, it was contended; 
(I) The provision regarding postponing the proceedings if an l1ccmed is 
found to be of unsound mind as contained in section 465 <>f the Criminal Proce-
dure Code is confined to the trial stage and does not apply to the proceedings 
before the High Court on referenc~ as the same are post-trial proceedings. 
D 
(2) In proceedingi on reference under section 334 the accused has 
no 
right of audiern;:e before the Hi2h Court. 
(3) The High Court was wrong in 
delegating its powers to 
determine 
wht;ther the respondent was of unsound mind to the Medical Board. 
HELD : (i) As far as an accu$etl person sentenced to death is concerned, 
his trial does not conclude with termination of the proceedings in the Court 
of Session: since: the death sentence riassed by the Court of Session is subject 
E 
to confirmation by the High Court, the trial cannot b~ deemed to have con-
cluded till an executable s·~ntence is passed by a competent court. The confir-
mation proceedings are in subitance a continuation of the trial. 
Expr,~ssion 
"at his trial" occ.t•,;ring in section 465 ha·s to be liberally construed in a manner 
which is not repugnan! to the fundamental principles of natural justice. 
(5790-E; 
5800-Ej 
· 
(2) in coafirmation proceedings the High Court cannot arbilr::riiy refuse 
to hear the accused either in :>erson or throu1~h counsel. It is wrong to ;tate 
F 
that the High Court accepted the ipse dixit of the medical expens. 
These 
experts. 
gave detailed and cogent re<isons in support of their opinion. 
The 
High" _Court meticu!ouslv considered their evidence and thereafter recocdcd its 
own findings on the crucial issues. 
[581B-D] 
The decision in Vi1•ian Rodrick v. Swte of' West Bengal [1969] 3 S.C.C. 176, 
followed. 
The decision in cases of J111nma11 & Ors. v. State of Punjab A.LR. 1957 S.C. 
469 and Surjit Singh a11d Anr. v. State of Punjab. Criminal Appeal No. rJ 
G 
of 1968 decided on 15-10-1968 applied. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Criminal Appeal 
No. 
158 of 1971-
Aooeal bv Special Leave from the Judgment & OAfer dated the 
3rd July, 1970 of the Bombay High Court in confirmation case No. 
20 of 1969. 
H 
D. JI. Patel and M. N: Shroff, for the Appelant. 
B. R . .Agaiwala, for the Respondent. 
• 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
MAHARASHTRA v. SINDHI (Sarkaria, !.) 
575 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SARKARIA, J.-The principal question raised in this appe~l by 
speciaJ leave is : Whether Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure, 1898, is applicable to proceedings in reference under s. 374 
pending befor~ the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence 
awarded to an accused by the Court of Session ? 
It arises out of these circumstances. 
Sindhi alias Raman was tried, convicted and sentenced to death 
on 13-8-1969 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay for 
the double murder of two brothers, Lal Chand Jagannath Yadav and 
Dullar Jaggi Yadav in Chi*havali Farm at Malad on 
the 
night 
between the 25th and 26th of August, 1968. Sindhi did not appeal 
against the order of his conviction. But the trial Judge made a refe-
rence under s. 374 of the Code to the High Court for confirmation 
of the death sentence. The reference came up for hearing towards the 
end of 1969. 
On 2

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