KOR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application directed against the order of Sessions Judge, Jammu, dismissing the appeal of Kor Singh accused who was convicted under Section 447, R. P. C. by Munsiff Magistrate, Samba and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50/-, or in default to undergo one week's further rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows ! Kor Singh accused is the landlord and Lehnu is his tenant who was in possession of about ten kanals of land situate in village Sarain Tehsil Samba. On the 11th of November, 1963 Lehnu was ploughing his land and it is alleged that Kor Singh accused entered into that land, unyoked his bullocks and drove them away. Lehnu filed a complaint against Kor Singh under Section 447, R. P. C. on the 12th of November, 1963. Kor Singh denied the charge and the trial Magistrate convicted him under Section 447, R. P. C. and sentenced him as stated above.

(3.) IN this revision application it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the trial Magistrate has not put questions to the accused under Section 342, Cr. P. C. , for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. My attention has been drawn to the statement of the accused recorded under Section 342, Cr, P. C by the trial Magistrate. The first question put to the accused was whether he had heard the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The accused replied in the affirmative. The other question put to him was "what he had to say? The accused replied that he had to say nothing. The third question posed to the accused was if he had to lead evidence in defence. The accused said that he would produce witnesses in defence. The argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner is that the trial Magistrate has not strictly complied with the provisions of Section 342, Cr. P. C. , which has caused prejudice to the accused. There is some force in this contention. It was necessary for the trial Court to have put to the accused circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him in order to enable him to tender his explanation. Merely asking whether he had heard the statements of the prosecution witnesses was not enough. The accused is an illiterate villager and his reply that he had heard the statements made by the prosecution witnesses does not indicate that he was required to explain the circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him. It is the duty of the Court to put to the accused in clear words the circumstances which emerge from the statements of the prosecution witnesses so that he is in a position to tender his explanation to those circumstances. This has not been done in the present case.