LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus SINGHARA SINGH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 ~ - 4 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 485 ST A TE OF UTT AR PRADESH ti. SINGHARA SINGH AND OTHERS (A. K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J. c. SHAH, JJ.) Crin1inal Procedure-Evidence-Respondents accused of mur- der-A1agistrate not empo1vered to record a confession records a con~ fession-Records of confession not held to be admissible by the trial Court-T/1e .Vagistrate gives oral evidence of confession-The n:lords H.ied to refresh !1is rnen1ory-T-Vhether the oral evidence is aa'inissible-Code of Crilnh1at Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), ss. 164. 364. 533-lndian Evidence Act, 1872 (! of 1872), ss. 74 80 and 159. By sub-sec. ( 1) of s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it \Y~s provided, '\<\ny Presidency Magistrate, any Wlagistrate of the first class and any I'vfagistrate of the second class specially ern- powered in this behalf by State c;overn1nent nlay, if he is not a police -officer record any state1nent or confession made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other la\v for the ti1ne being in force or at any time afterwards before the c01nmencen1ent of the inquiry or trial." In a case \\'here a confession had been recorded under s. 164(1) by a Magistrate of the second class not specially e1npo\vered, Held, the confession had not been recorded under s. 164 of the (~ode and the record could not be put in evidence under ss. 74 and 80 of the Evidence Act to prove confes:iiion. Oral evidence of the Magistrate to prove the confession \Vas not a<l1nissible. If a statute has conferred a power to do an act and ha<l laid <lo\Vn thr" method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than thJt lvhich has been prescribed. Taytur v. Taylor, (1875) 1 Ch. D. 47.6 and Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, L.R. 63 LA. 372. A ?vfagistrate recording a confession under s. 164 of the Code is bound to follow the procedure laid <lo'\Vn in it. Section 533 of the (~ode does not shovv that the procedure prescribed by s. 164 of the Code was not mandatory. The object of s. 164 of the Code \Vas not to give the prosecution the advantage of ss. 74 and 80 ot the "EviJence Act so that the only result of the disregard of these pro,·isions \Vas to deprive the prosecution of that advantage. Nazir Ahmed's case was rightly decided. Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, L.R. 63 I.A. 372 Rao Shiv Bah•dur Singh ,-. State of Findhya Pradesh, [1954 J S.C.R. 1908 and Dap Chand \'. State of Rajasthan, [1962/ 1 S.C.R. 662. 'The principle of Nar::ir Ahmed's case which dealt '\Vith the re~ cording of a confession by a Magistrate of the first class without c;om!Jlying \Vith the procedure laid down in s. 164 of the Code !llie coYers the present case. \Vhen a statute confers a power on 1963 August 16 1963 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and Others. Sarkar /. 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] certain judicial officers, that pow~r can obviously be exercised only by those officers and no other officer can exercise it. Case Law reviewed. Ashraf v. State, l.L.R. [1960] 2 All. 488, distinguished. Ram Sanchi v. State A.LR. 1963 AIL 308 and Ghulam Hns· Jazn v. 1'he King, L.R. 77 I.A. 65, distinguiseJ. Brij Hushan Singh v. King Emperor, L.R. 73 I.A. J Hhubor: Sahu v. The King, L. R. 76 I.A. 147 Emperor v. Ram Nares!:, l.L.R. [1939 J All 377. Re, Natcsan, A.LR. 1960 Mad. 433. Willie Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 114<:. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRJsDic'floN : Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1%2. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May, 31, 1961, of the Allahabad High Court in Cri- minal Appeals Nos. 2017 and 2109 of 1960 and Refere11ce No. 142 of 1%0. C. B. Agarwala, G. C. Mathur 'and C. P. Lal, for the appellant. Nuruddin Ahmed and V. D. Misra, for the respondents. August 16, 1963. The Judgment of the Court was de- livered by SARKAR J.-On March 20, 1959 Raja Ram, a shop- keeper, of Afzalgarh in the State of Uttar Pradesh was murdered by gunshot in his shop. Seven persons includ- ing the three respondents, Singhara Singh, Bir Singh and Tega Sin;;h were prosecuted for this murder. The learn- ed Additional Sessions Judge of Bijnor before whom the trial was held, convicted the respondent Singhara Singh of the murder under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death. He convicted the respondents Bir Singh and Tega Singh of abetment of the murder under
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.