SALIG RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Salig Ram and six others against an order 29-9-1953, passed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur upholding the order dated 30-5-1953, passed by the learned Magistrate convicting Salig Ram applicant under Sections 148 and 324, I. P. C., and the other applicants under Section 147, I. P. C., and convicting further all the applicants under Sections 323 and 325, I. P. C. and sentencing them to various terms of imprisonment. The occurrence with respect to which the proceedings were started against the applicants was alleged to have taken place in the evening of 16-9-1952, when the complainant Tribcni Sahai was returning from Nakhasa at Bajhera. It was alleged that when he was near the field of one Darbari Lal, he was set upon by the seven applicants who were sitting near a chari' field. It was further alleged that the applicants were armed with lathis and kantas. One Darbari Banjara was said to have been coining from the same side just behind Tribcni Sahai. On his trying to intervene and to forbid the assailants not to assault Tribeni Sahai, he too was attacked by them and beaten by lathis and kantas. A report of the occurrence was made at police station Jalalabad at 7.10 P. M. the. same evening. The victims of the assault were sent for medical examination. Thereafter investigation followed, resulting in the seven applicants being prosecuted by the police for the offence for which they have been convicted.

(2.) The first question which has been urged before me by learned counsel for the applicants is that the disregard of the provisions of Section 342, Criminal P. C., was so gross in the present case that there was grave prejudice to the accused and consequently the conviction could not be sustained. On that aspect of the matter the learned Sessions Judge observed as follows:

(3.) It has been pointed out by this Court and by the Supreme Court in a number of recent pronouncements that the necessity to observe faithfully and fairly the salutary provisions of Section 342, Criminal P. C. cannot be overemphasised. It is not a proper compliance to read out a long string of questions and answers which may be wholly unintelligible to the accused. Again it is not sufficient compliance to string together a long series of facts and ask the accused what he has to say about them. He must be questioned separately about each material circumstance which is intended to be used against him. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him. The questioning must, therefore, be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. In the present case the learned Sessions Judge observed that the first question that was put to the accused ran into as many as 10 or 11 lines and it was a question which could not even be understood by an educated person, much less could the accused be expected to follow the same. The learned Sessions Judge further observed that the statements of the accused were recorded in a very unintelligible manner. There can therefore be no doubt whatsoever that there was no compliance with the salutary provisions of Section 342 of the Code. The question, therefore, arises whether that error or emission vitiated the trial. As has been held by the Supreme Court in -- 'Tara Singh v. The State', AIR 1951 SC 441 (A), and followed later on by the same Court in -' Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab', AIR 1953 SC 76 (B), it is not correct to say that every error or omission in this behalf would necessarily vitiate a trial, because errors of this type may fall within the category of curable irregularities and that, therefore, the question in each case would depend upon the degree of the error and upon whether prejudice has been occasioned or is likely to be occasioned. If we look into the question that was put to the accused in an omnibus form, the question running to the length of about 10 or 11 lines, it would be fairly obvious that it could not be understood by the accused who were illiterate persons, and they could not be expected to follow the implications of the same. In fact in the case of two of the accused, namely, Salig Ram and Ram Das, only one question had been put down, while the questions leading to the second and third answers have not been put down on the record at all by the learned Magistrate. On these facts there can be no doubt whatsoever that the disregard of the provisions of Section 342 of the Code was so gross that there was a grave likelihood of prejudice and the matter has certainly ended in prejudice to the accused persons,