Cr

imi
nalTr
ialI
mpor
tantPoi
nts

1)Ther ear
ecertai
npoint
swhi chmor eoftenthannotcreatet
roubl
etotheprosecuti
on,
accusedandev encourt
s.Insuchsituati
onitbecomesdi f
fi
cul
tforal
lofaboveast odeci
de
whatt odonext.Todealwit
hsuchi ssuesoflaw,ali
ttl
eattemptismadetocov eral
lsuchissues,
wit
hit'ssol
uti
ons,basedonther at
ioslai
ddownbyt heHon'bl
eApexCourtandHon' bl
eHigh
Courts.

2)Dependi ngont hegr avi

t yoft heof fencesandt hepuni shmentpr escr
ibedtherefor,cri
mi nal
tri
alundert heCodeofCr i
mi nal Pr ocedure,1973( her ei
nafterr eferredas'theCode' )hasbeen
classifi
edintot wopar tsv i
z .
,Magi steri
altr
ialandSessi onst r
ial.Thef ir
stschedul etothet he
Codei sdi v
idedi ntotwopar tsnamel y,PartIandPar tII
.Col umnIoft hefi
rstpartoft hefir
st
schedul eenumer atesthel i
stofof fencespuni shableundert heI ndianPenal CodeandCol umn6
thereofindicatest hecour tbywhi cht hoseoffencesar etri
abl e.Thosecour t
sar eeitherthe
Magi str
ate’scour tsorthecour tsofSessi on.Thesecondpar toft hefir
stschedul edealswi th
offencespuni shabl eunderot herlaws.I ntheabsenceofanyspeci f
icprovi
sionundersuchot her
l
awsr egardinginv esti
gati
on, i
nqui ryortri
al,t
hepr ocedurepr escr ibedundert heCodef ort he
sameshal lbeappl icablebyv i
rtueofSect ion4( 2)oft heCode.I fundert hespecial l
awt he
offencei spunishabl ewithi mpr isonmentf orlifeori mprisonmentf ormorethan7y ears,thenby
virt
ueoft hesecondpar toft hef ir
stschedul etot heCodet heof fenceshallbet r
iablebyaCour t
ofSessi on.

Rel
evantpr
ovi
sionsast
oSessi
onsTr
ial
:
-

1)Chapt erXVI IIoft heCodest art

ingwi thSect i
on225andendi ngwi thSect ion237andsame
dealwithpr ovisionsgov erningthet rialbeforeaCour tofSessi on.Sect i
on225oft heCode
enjoi
nst hatinev eryt r
ialbeforeaCour tofSessi ont hepr osecut i
onshal lbeconduct edbya
Publi
cPr osecut or( her ei
nafterreferredas' P.P.')Sect ion193oft heCodepr ov idesthatexcept
asotherwi seexpr esslyprov i
dedbyt het heCodeoranyot herlaw, noCour tofSessi onshal lt
ake
cognizanceofanyof fenceasacour tofor i
ginal jurisdictionunl esst hecasehasbeen
commi ttedt oitbyaMagi str
ateundert hetheCodeTher ear est at
ut esli
ket heN. D.P.S.Act,
1985{ Section36A( 1) (
d)},PreventionofCor ruptionAct ,1988( Section5), Pr otecti
onofChi ldr
en
fr
om Sexual Off encesAct ,2012{Sect i
on33( 1)}andof fenceofDef amationagai nstt he
presi
dent ,Vice-Pr esident,Gov er
noroft heSt ate, SateAdmi ni
stratorofUTet c( aspr ovi
dedu/ s
199(2)oft heCode) ,whereinitispr ov i
dedt hatt hespeci al Court(SessionsJudge)shal lt
ake
cognizanceofanof fenceundert hesai dAct swi thoutt hecasebei ngcommi t
tedt oit.I
nsuch
casesitisper mi ssi
blef ortheSessi onsCour ttot akecogni zanceoft heof fencewi thouta
commi ttalofthecasebyt heMagi strat
econcerned.Butt hereareotherenact ments,for
exampl eTheSchedul edCast esandSchedul edTribes( Pr
eventi
onofat rocit
ies)Act,1989whi ch
i
ssi l
entregardingcommi t
ment .Trialunderthi
sst atutesisal
sot obeconduct edbyaCour tof
Session.InGangul aAshokv .StateofA. P.–AI R2000SC740.Hon' bl
eSupr emeCour thel
dt hat
themandat eunderSect ion193t heCodei sappli
cabl etothespecialcourtsmannedby
SessionsJudgest ryingof fencesundert heSC/ ST( Preventi
onofat r
ociti
es)Act ,
1989andt hat
thosecour t
scannott akecogni zanceoft heoffencesundert hesaidActwi thoutthecasebei ng
commi ttedtot hem byt heMagi stratesconcerned.Sai dvi
ewi sfoll
owedandappr ovedby
Hon'bleSupremeCour tinthecaseofRat ti
ram v.StateofM.P., reportedinAI R2012SC1485
(ThreeJudges) .

2)Whent heaccusedappear sori sbr oughtbef orecour tpur suantt ot hecommi tmentoft he
case, t
heP. P.shoul dopent hecasebydescr ibingt hechar gebr oughtagai nstt heaccusedand
statingbywhatev i
dencehepr oposest opr ov et hegui ltoft heaccused.Af terconsi der i
ngt he
recor doft hecaseandt hedocument ssubmi ttedal ongwi thsuchr ecor dandaf t
erhear i
ngt he
submi ssionsoft heaccusedandt hepr osecut ion, iftheSessi onsJudgeconsi derst hatt her eare
nosuf fici
entgr oundsf orpr oceedi ngagai nstt heaccused, Sessi onsJudgeshal ldischar get he
accusedgi vingr easonsf ordoi ngso.I f,howev er ,thej udgei soft heopi niont hatt her eisgr ound
forpr esumi ngt hatt heaccusedhascommi ttedt heof fencehemayf ramet hechar geagai nst
theaccusedi nwr it
ing.Att hisst aget heSessi onsJudgei sent it
ledt oconsi deronl yt he
document spr oducedbyt hepr osecut ional ongwi tht hechar gesheet .Theaccusedi snot
ent i
tledt opr oduceorcausepr oduct i
onofanydocumentatt hisst agef ort heconsi der ati
onof
theSessi onsJudge.( Buthecanpr oducedocument sinsuppor tofhi scase, asandwhensuch
stagecomesi .
e.tosayu/ s294, 233and315oft heCode) .Thechar gesshal lber eadov ert othe
accusedandexpl ainedt ohim andheshal lbeaskedast owhet herhepl eadsgui l
tyoft he
offencechar gedorwhet herhecl aimst obet riedf ort hechar ge.Ift hej udgei sofopi niont hat
not withstandi ngt heconcl usionsoft hepol i
ce, theof fencet hati sact ual l
ymadeouti snotone
excl usivelyt r
iablebyacour tofSessi onst henheshal l frameachar geagai nsttheaccusedand
transf erthecasef ortri
al t
ot heChi efJudi cial Magi stratewhoshal ltryt hecaseasi fi twer ea
war rantcasei nsti
tutedonapol i
cer epor t.Ev ent houghSect i
on229oft heCodegi vesdi scr eti
on
tot hej udget oconv icttheaccused, incasei fhepl eadsgui lt
y ,t
hechar gei nasessi onscase
beingf orgr aveof fences, i
tisdesi rablet hatt heaccusedi snotst raight awayconv i
ct ed.The
propercour sewoul dbet ocal lupont hepr osecut i
ont opr ov eitscasebyadduci ngev i
dence.
Wher et heaccuseddoesnotpl eadgui lt
yt hecour tshal l callupont hepr osecut i
ont oadduce
ev i
dencei nsuppor tofi t
scase.Ev idencef ort hepr osecut ionshal l bet akenonaday -to-day
basi s( Sect i
on309oft heCode) .Aftert heconcl usionoft hepr osecut ionev idence, theaccused
i
st obeexami nedunderSect ion313( 1)(b)oft heCodewi thr egardt ot hei ncr i
minat ing
circumst ancesappear i
ngagai nsthi mi ntheev i
dencef ort hepr osecut ion.Af tertheexami nat i
on
oft heaccusedt hecour thast opostt hecasef orhear ingunderSect ion232oft heCode.I faf t
er
heari
ngt heprosecutionandthedefencethejudgeconsidersthatthereisnoev idencet o
i
ndicatethattheaccusedcommi t
tedtheof f
encewit
hwhi chhei schar gedthejudgecanr ecord
anor derofacquit
talunderSecti
on232oft heCode.Thisisav eryvitalstageofthesessi ons
tr
ialandobser v
anceofSect i
on232oft heCodeandSect i
on233oft heCodeatt heappropr i
ate
stageismandat ory.-K.MoiduMammoov .Stat
eofKerala,r
eportedi n2009Cr.L. J.4045(Full
Bench) .

3)Afterheari
ngunderSect i
on232oft heCode, iftheaccusedisnotacquittedt her
eunder,the
accusedshallbecall
edupont oenteronhisdefenceandt oadduceanyev idencewhi chhe
mighthav ei
nsuppor tt
hereof .Aft
ertheconclusionofthedef enceevi
dence, ifany,t
hecasehas
tobet akenupforargument s.Afterheari
ngthear guments,thecourthastopasst hejudgment
i
naccor dancewithSections353and354oft heCode.I ft
hejudgmentisoneofconv i
ctionand
thejudgedoesnotpr oceedt oinvokethebenev olentpr
ovisi
onoft heProbationofOf fendersAct
,
1958,Judgeshallheartheaccusedont hequest ionofsentenceandthenpassasent encein
accordancewithlaw.Thisinshor tistheprocedur et
obef oll
owedi nt
heor dinarymurdert r
ial
s
beforeaCourtofSession.

Poi
ntst
obekepti
nmi
ndwhi
l
etr
yingSessi
onsCases:
-

#Bef
orethecommencementofthetri
al,Sessi
onsJudgehast
oensuret
hatt
hepol
icepaper
(
char
gesheet)al
ongwit
htheor
iginal161(3)st
atement
sofwit
nessesar
ebef
oret
hecourt
(
Magist
rat
eisrequi
redt
ocomplywiththesection209oft
heCode).

#Att heoutset,i
tshouldbeascer t
ainedfrom thedefencelawyerwhet herhehasgotcopi esof
allt
hestatement softhewitnesses,documentsincludi
ngchemi calrepor t
,F.S.L.reportet
c.If
ther
ei sanyundesirabl
econductont hepartofadefencelawyercompl ainingofnon- recei
ptof
copiesofstatementsofwi t
nesseset c.possi
blywit
hav i
ewtogett hemat teradjournedand
protr
actthetrial
,j
udgeshoul dinf
ormt helawyeroftheaccusedt hathehadnogr ievancewhen
thecommi tt
al Magistr
atehadcompl iedwithSecti
on207or208oft heCode.

#Befor
ethecommencementoft heprosecuti
onevidencei
tisal
way
sdesir
abl
eforthej
udgeto
makeapersonalnoteofthef
oll
owingdetai
lsascer
tainedf
rom t
her
ecor
dsofthecaseorf
rom
t
hepubli
cprosecutorandorf
rom t
hedefencelawyer:-

a)Thedat
e,t
imeandpl
aceofoccur
rence

b)t
hedat
eandt
imeofr
epor
ti
ngt
othepol
i
ce
c)t
hedat
eandt
imeoft
heF.
I.
R.r
eachi
ngt
heMagi
str
ateconcer
ned

d)Thenameoft
hedeceasedandhi
sal
i
asname,
ifany
,

e)t
henamesandal
i
asname,
ifany
,ofeachaccusedper
son

f)t
hedat
eofar
restofeachaccused.Thi
scanbewr
it
tenagai
nstt
henamesofeachaccused
per
sons.

I
fSessi
onsJudgei sf
ull
yinf
ormedinadvanceabouttheabov edetail
s,j
udgemaynotmake
mist
akesduringt
hecourseofthetr
ial
.Si
milar
ly,
ift
he'P.P'ordefencelawyerorawit
ness
makesmistakesj
udgecancorrectt
hem orseekfur
therclar
if
icat
ionoft hematter
.

Frami ngofchar geisanexer cisewhi chhast obeper formedwi thduecar eandcaut i

on.The
policeinv ar
iabl
yfil
etheirchar ge-sheeti nv ernacularl
anguage.Thepol i
cechar gewi l
lbeint he
form ofasi nglecomplexsent encewi thoutanysepar atecountsofchar ge.Ther eshoul dbea
separ atecountofchargef oreachpenal Sect i
on.Itwillbeusefultorefertot hemodel charge
givenaf tereachpenalprov isionoft heI .
P.C.i nthe“LawofCr i
mes”byRat hanl alandDheer ajl
al.
IftheSessi onsJudgest atingi nthecour tcharget hattheaccusedper soncausedt hedeat hof
thedeceasedbyst abbingonspeci f
iedpar tsofthehumanbody ,donotbl indlyfoll
owt hepol i
ce
char gebutensur ethelocat i
onoft hei njuriesont hebodyoft hev ict
imf rom t hepostmor tem
certifi
cate,i
njur
y/medical certifi
cate,inquestr eportetc.

Evenwhent heaccusedpleadsguilt
yt othechar geframedagai nsthim andj udgei sconv i
nced
thathispleaisvoluntar
il
ymade, pl
easedon' tproceedt ost r
aightawayconv icthi m.Thi sis
becauset hewor dsusedu/s229oft heCodear e“ I
ftheaccusedpl eadsguilty,thej udgeshall
recordthepleaandmay ,i
nhisdiscreti
onconv i
cthi mt hereon”.TheCour tshoul dnotactupon
thepleaofgui l
tyinseri
ousoffencesbutshoul dpr oceedt otaket heevidenceasi fthepleahad
beenoneofnotgui lt
yandshoulddeci dethecaseupont hewhol eevidenceincl udingt he
accusedpl ea.-Ram Kumarv .Stat
eofU. P,reportedin1998Cr .L.
J.1267; Mani shMi sr
av .St
ate
ofU.P.,report
edi n2003Cr.L.
J.4085.

Adi st
urbingtrendnoticedinvar i
ousSessionsCourtsistheadjournmentofthetri
alcontr
aryto
theday -
to-dayruleenj
oinedbySect ion309(1)oftheCode.Oncet hetri
alofaSessionsCase
hasbegun, i
tshouldbepr oceededwi t
hfrom day-
to-day.Sect
ion317oft heCodespeaksabout
i
nqui r
iesort r
ialbei
nghel dintheabsenceofaccused.Sai dsecti
onprovi
dest hatwhenaccused
i
sr epresentedbyt hepleader,Judgemaypr oceedwi t
hsucht r
aili
nabsenceoft heaccused.But
whentheissueofident
it
yoftheaccusedi
sinv
olv
ed,
Judgemaynotpr
oceedwi
tht
het
ri
ali
n
absenceofaccusedinsuchcases.

Atwhatst agecanapr osecut ionwi t

nessbedecl aredhost i
le?I tisenoughi fthewi tness
deviatesf rom hi spr ev iousst atement smadet ot hepol iceorwhent heCour tconsi dersi t
necessar yt ogr antt heper missi onunderSect ion154oft heEv i
denceAct ,
1872f rom t he
wit
nesse' sdemeanour , t
emper ,at
tit
ude, bear i
ng, tenorort endencyofhi sanswer sorot herwi se.
Thedi scr eti
onconf er redbyt heabov epr ov i
sionshoul dbel iberallyexer cised.Itisopent ot he
partywhocal lsthewi tnesst oseekper mi ssionoft hecour tunderSect ion154oft heEv idence
Act,1872atanyst ageoft heexami nat ion.Pl easer efert or atiolaiddownbyHon' bl eApexCour t
i
nt hecaseofDahy abhai Chhaganbhai Thakkerv .St ateofGuj arat-AI R1964SC1563.TheP. P.
canr equestt hecour ttodecl ar esuchawi t
nessashost il
e.Mer elybecauset heCour tgav e
permi ssiont ot heP. P.t ocross-exami nehi sownwi tnessbydecl aringhi m host il
e, i
tdoesnot
meant hatt heev idenceofsuchawi tnessi scompl et el
yef faced.Pl easer efertor at i
ol ai
ddown
byHon' bl
eApexCour tint hecaseofAni l Rai v.St ateofBi har-AI R2001SC3173.I twi llbe
i
nappr opr iatetowr i
tei nt hedeposi tionofawi tnesst hathei sdecl aredhost il
e.Nei thert he
Evi
denceActnort het heCodeusessuchanexpr essi on.Whent heP. P.makesar equesti nt his
behalf,thecour tisact uallygrant i
ngper mi ssionundert wosepar atepr ov i
sionsofl aw.Thef i
rst
permi ssiont hatisgr ant edisunderSect i
on154oft heEv idenceAct ,1872per mi t
tingt heP. P.t o
putquest ionst ohi sownwi tnesswhi chmi ghtbeputi ncr oss- exami nationbyt headv ersepar ty
.
Thesecondper mi ssionwhi chi sgrant edi soneundert hepr ovisot oSect i
on162( 1)oft heCode
wher eintheP. P.isper mi t
tedt oconf rontt hewi tnesswi thhi sst atement smadet ot hepol ice.
Hencet hel egal wayofgr antingper mi ssiont ot heP. P.woul dbebywr i
tingint hedeposi ti
on, the
fol
lowi ng:-

“P.
P.Isgrant
edpermissi
onunderSecti
on154oftheEv
idenceAct,
1872andunderthepr
ovi
so
toSecti
on162(1)oft
heCode”.Thereaf
teral
so,
iti
schi
efexaminat
ionandnotcr
oss-
examinat
ion.
”

Whenawi tnesssay st
hathedidnotmakeapart
icul
arstat
ementtothepoliceandi fhi
s161(3)
statementisot her
wise,t
hentheatt
ent
ionoft
hewi t
nessshoul
dbedr awntot hatpartofhi
s
161( 3)st
atementandhi sexpl
anat
ionf
orhavi
ngmadet hatst
atement,shouldbesoughtbyt he
cross-examiningcounsel.Whi
chmaybe:-

“Whenyouwerequest
ionedbythepol
i
cey
ouappeart
ohav
emadeast
atementasabov
e.What
haveyougott
osayaboutthat
?”

Ther
emaybe,
inagi
vencase,
mor
ethanoneaccusedoronewi
tnesshav
ingt
hesamename.
Ensurethatnomi stakeiscommittedonaccountoft his.Aftert
hei
niti
alment i
onbyawi t
nessof
theful
lnameofanaccusedper sonorawi tnessitisdesirablet
ogiveinparenthesi
stherankof
theaccusedort hewi t
nessasA2orC. W.2orP. W.3,asthecasemaybe, sothatwheneverthe
nameoft hesameaccusedorwi tnessismadement i
onofbyawi t
ness,hisfullnameneednot
berepeated.Thiscanhel pyout
oav oidneedlessconfusion.-Munney@ RahatJanKhanv .
Stat
eofU. P,report
edi n2006Cr.
L.J.4064(SC) .

Veryof tenthedef encewouldelicitf

rom theprosecut
ionwi t
nessesthatevenbeforethelodging
oftheF. I.
R,pol
icehadcomet othesceneofcr imeandquest i
onedthewi t
nessesandhadt aken
theirstatements.Thisisobviouslytooffsetsuchstatementswithav i
ewtor equestthecourtto
discardsuchst atementsasonehi tbySection162oft heCode.Butmakesur eastowhether
thev i
sitofthepol i
cewasonl ytoensur esomeunconf i
rmedreportwhichtheymighthave
receivedaboutt heoccurrenceandt heirquesti
oningofpersonswasonl ytowardsthatendor
not.-SatishNarayanSawantv .StateofGoa, 2009Cr.
L.J.4655(SC).

Barri
ngthestatutori
lyexemptedcategory,hearsayev i
denceisnotacceptabl
easl egalevi
dence
i
nv i
ewoft heimpl i
edprohibi
tionunderSection60oft heEv i
denceAct,1872.Veryoftennon-
occurr
encewitnessesmayt esti
fybefor
ecour tthatotherpersonstol
dthem thattheaccused
hadstabbedthedeceasedandsoon.Suchst at
ement sassuch, neednotberecordedunless
theyconst
itut
er esgestaeev i
dence,ext
rajudici
al confessi
onoranyotherexempt edcategor
y.

Wher edur i
ngt hecourseoft hetriali
foneormor eaccusedarefoundabscondi ngt hentheirbai
l
shouldbecancel l
edimmedi atelyandhi ssuretyshallbesummonedt oproducedsuch
abscondi ngaccusedorpay -upamountofsur ety.Therearet
hentwoopt i
onsav ai
lablet
ot he
court.Onei st omerel
yissuear restwar r
antagainstthem andconti
nuewi t
ht het r
ialwit
hthe
accusedpr esentbysegregat i
ngt r
ailofabscondingaccusedwiththepresentaccused.The
otheralternativei
stostopt het r
ialandissuear r
estwar r
antandi
niti
atestepsunderSect i
ons82
and83oft heCode.Byf ollowingt hesecondcour se,
tri
aloft
hecasegetsdi srupted.Usey our
discr
etionaf tereval
uati
ngt hesituati
on.

Supposinganaccusedwhoi slunati
ciscommi tt
edtot hecour
tofSession,wit
houttherebei
ng
anyinquir
y,suchcommi tt
alisi
llegalbecauseiti
sforthecommi t
tal
Magi str
atehimselfto
conductaninquiryunderSecti
on328oft heCode.Butwhenaccusedper sonwhoi sofunsound
mindiscommi t
tedtothecourtofSession,Sessi
onsJudgehast ofoll
owpr ocedureasprovi
ded
u/s329oft heCode.

Sect
ion10ofEv
idenceAct
,1872r
ender
sany
thi
ngsai
d,doneorwr
it
tenbyany
oneoft
he
conspirat
orsi
nreferencetothei
rcommoni ntenti
onasar el
evantfact,
notonlyasagainsteach
oftheconspir
ator
sbutf orpr
ov i
ngtheexi
stenceoft heconspi
racyit
self
.Further,
thesai
dfact
canbeusedf orshowingthataparti
cul
arpersonwasapar t
ytotheconspiracy.Theonly
condit
ionforappl
icati
onoftherulei
nS.10i sthattheremustbe"reasonablegroundtobel
ieve
thatt
woormor epersonshaveconspir
edtogethertocommi tanoffence.

Thebasi cpr i
nciplewhichunder li
esinS. 10oft heEv idenceAct ,1872i sthet heor yofagencyand
henceev eryconspirat
ori sanagentofhi sassoci atei ncarryingoutt heobj ectoft heconspi r
acy.
Therecanbenodoubt ,relyi
ngont heconf essionbyoneoft heaccusedt hat ,therear e
reasonabl egroundst obel i
ev ethatallthef ouraccusedhav econspi r
edt oget hert ocommi tthe
offence.Sowhatt heseaccusedhav espokent oeachot herinr eferencet ot hei rcommon
i
ntent i
onascoul dbegat her edfrom saidconf essioncanber egardedasr elev antfact sf all
ing
withinthepur vi
ewoft heS. 10oft heEv i
denceAct ,1872.Itisnotnecessar ythatawi tness
shouldhav edeposedt ot hef actsot r
anspi redbet weent heconspi rators.Adi aloguebet ween
them coul dbepr ovedthr oughanyot herlegal l
yper mi t
tedmode.Whenconf essi oni sl egall
y
provedandf oundadmi ssi bleinev i
dence, thesamecanbeusedt oascer tainwhatwassai d,
doneorwr itt
enbet weent heconspi r
ators.Al lthethingsr epor t
edi nthatconf essionr ef erri
ngt o
whataccused' A'andaccused' B'havesai danddonei nreferencet othecommoni ntent i
onof
theconspi rator
sar ethususabl eunderS. 10oft heEv i
denceAct ,
asagai nstt hoset woaccused
aswel l
,i
nt hesamemanneri nwhi chtheyar eusabl eagainstconf essorhi msel f.Pleaser eferto
rati
ol ai
ddowni nthecaseofMohammedAj mal MohammadAmi rKasabal iasABUMuj ahidv .
StateofMahar ashtra,r
epor tedi nAIR2012SC3565andSt ateofMahar asht rav .Damu
Gopinat hShinde, r
eportedi nAI R2000SC1691.

Statement smadebyt heconspirator

saf t
ert heyarearrestedcannotbebr oughtwi thi
ntheambit
ofS. 10oft heEv idenceAct ,becausebyt hatt i
met heconspiracywoul dhaveended.I fso,t
he
statementf or
mi ngpar toftheconf essi
onal statementmadet othepoliceofficercannotbe
pressedi nt
oserv icebyt heprosecutionagainstt heotherco-accused.Thus,theendeav ourto
bringt heconfessi onal st
atementofco- accusedi ntothegamutofev i
dencet hroughtherouteof
S.10oft heEvidenceActi sfrust
ratedbyaser i
esofdeci si
onsofApexCour t.Pleaserefert
o
ratiolaiddowni nt hecaseofSt ate(N.C.T.ofDel hi
)v.Nav j
otSandhu( AfzalGur u'
s),
repor
tedin
AIR2005SC3820

Theordinar
ypresumptionaboutawitnessi
st hateverywitnesstest
if
yingonoathbeforeacourt
oflawisatrut
hfulwit
nessunlessheisshownt obeunr eli
ableoruntr
uthfulonanypart
icular
aspect.Wit
nessessol
emnlydeposingonoat hinthewi t
nessboxdur i
ngat ri
aluponagrave
chargeofmurdermustbepr esumedtoactwi thafull
senseofr esponsibi
li
tyofthe
consequenceofwhattheystate.Pl
easeref
ert orat
iolai
ddownbyHon' bleApexCourti
nt he
caseofSt at
eofPunj
abv .Har
iSi
ngh-AI
R1974SC1168;Stat
eofW.B.,
Appel
lantv.Kai
lash
ChandraPandey–AI R2005SC119.Gener
all
yspeaki
ngawit
nessmaybecl
assif
iedint
othree
categor
ies,namel
y:

i
)whol
l
yrel
i
abl
e

i
i
)whol
l
yunr
eli
abl
e

i
i
i)Nei
therwhol
l
yrel
i
abl
enorwhol
l
yunr
eli
abl
e.

Inthecaseofcat egories(i)and(ii)thecour tshoul dhavenodi f

fi
cultyi ncomingtothe
conclusionaboutt hecr edibi
li
tyorot herwi seoft hewi tness.Itiswi t
hr egardtothe3rdcategor
y
ofwi t
nessest hatthecour twillhav etobeci rcumspectandwi l
lhav etol ookforcor
roborati
oni
n
mat er
ialparticularsbywayofdi rectorci rcumst ant ial
ev i
dence.Pl easer efert
orati
olaiddown
byHon' bleApexCour ti nthecaseofVadi veluThev arv.StateofMadr as-AI R1957SC614;
StateofPunj abvTar lokSingh-AI R1971SC121; Phool Chandv .StateofRaj ast
han-AIR1977
SC315.I nBhar wadaBhogi nbhai Hirj
ibhai v.StateofGuj ar at-AIR1983SC753( sai
djudgment
i
sr ecentlyfollowedi nt hecaseofAbdul Nawazv .StateofW. B–AI R2012SC1951)Hon' bl
e
Apexcour tobser vedcer t
aincharact eri
sticsaboutanor dinarywitness, theyareasfol
lows:-

1)Byandlar
geawit
nesscannotbeexpectedt
opossessaphotogr
aphi
cmemoryandtor
ecal
l
thedet
ail
sofani
nci
dent
.Iti
snotasifav i
deotapei
srepl
ayedonthement
alscr
een.

2)Ordinari
lyitsohappenst
hatawitnessisover
takenbyevents.Thewi t
nesscoul
dnothave
anti
cipatedtheoccurr
encewhichsooftenhasanelementofsur pr
ise.Themental
facul
ti
es,
ther
efore,cannotbeexpect
edtobeat t
unedtoabsorbthedetail
s.

3)Thepowersofobservat
iondi
fferf
rom per
sontoper
son.Whatonemaynot
ice,anothermay
not.Anobj
ect
,ormov ementmightembossitsi
mageononeperson'
smindwhereasitmightgo
unnoti
cedonthepar
tofanother.

4)Byandlar
gepeoplecannotaccur
atel
yrecal
laconversat
ionandreproducetheverywords
usedbythem orhear
dbythem.Theycanonlyrecal
lthemainpurportoftheconver
sati
on.Iti
s
unreal
i
sti
ctoexpectawit
nesstobeahumant aperecorder.

5)Inr
egar
dtotheexactt
imeofaninci
dentort
heti
medurat
ionofanoccur
rence,
usuall
y
peopl
emakethei
resti
matesbyguessworkonspuroft
hemomentattheti
meofi nt
err
ogat
ion
andonecannotexpectpeopl
etomakev er
ypreciseorrel
i
ableesti
mat
esi
nsuchmat
ter
s.Agai
n
i
tdependsonthetimesenseofindi
vi
dualswhichvari
esfrom per
sont
oper
son.

6)Ordi
nari
l
yawitnesscannotbeexpect
edtorecal
laccur
atel
ythesequenceofeventswhich
takepl
aceinr
apidsuccessionori
nashortt
imespan.Awitnessi
sliabl
etogetconfusedor
mixedupwheninter
rogatedlat
eron.

7)Awi tnesst houghwhol l

ytr
uthful
, i
sliabl
etobeov erawedbyt hecourtatmosphereand
pi
ercingcr oss-examinat
ionmadebycounsel andoutofner vousnessmi xesupfacts,
gets
confusedr egardingsequenceofev ents,orfi
ll
supdet ai
lsfr
om imaginati
onont hespurof
moment .Thesubconsci ousmindoft hewi t
nesssomet imessooper at
esonaccountoft hef
ear
oflooki
ngf ooli
shorbeingdisbel
ievedt houghthewi tnessisgiv
ingat r
uthfulandhonest
accountoft heoccurr
encewi t
nessedbyhi m.Per hapsi ti
sasor tofpsychologi
caldef
ence
mechani sm act i
vat
edont hespuroft hemoment .

Secti
on313exami nation-Compl exsent encesshoul dnotbeputt ot heaccused.Quest i
onsco-
rel
ati
ngt hemat eri
alobj ect
sandt her esultoftheirchemi cal exami nation, i
fincriminating, ar
eto
beputt ot heaccused.Somet i
mesi ncri
mi nati
ngci rcumstancesar eeliciteddur i
ngt hecr oss
examinat ionofwi t
nesses.I fthosecircumst ancesar esoughtt ober eliedon, thecour tcando
so.Buti faconv ict
ionisbei ngbasedonsuchci rcumst ancest hent heyshoul dbeputt ot he
accused.I tisalsowor thytonot ethatIfanaccusedadmi tsanyi ncr i
mi nati
ngci rcumst ances
appearingi nev idenceagai nsthimt hereisnowar rantthatt hoseadmi ssionsshoul dal together
beignor edmer elyont hegr oundthatsuchadmi ssi
onswer eadv ancedasadef encest rategy.-
Stat
eofU. P.,Appel l
antv .Lakhmi ,
reportedinAI R1998SC1007( Thr eej udges) .I
nLal i
y aB.
Nyak,repor t
edin2013( 1)GLR331, i
tisheldt hatadmi ssionand/ orst atementmadeby
accusedu/ s313oft heCodecanber eli
eduponasani ncr i
mi natoryci rcumst ances.

Veryoftenthemateri
alobj
ects(muddamaal arti
cles)andtheresul
tofchemicalexaminat
ionare
notproperl
yco-r
elat
ed.Makesuret hattheinvestigati
ngoffi
cerisaskedtoi
dentif
yeachitem
(muddamaal ar
ti
cle)i
ntheF.S.Lreportwit
hr eferencetothemat er
ialobj
ect
sproducedbef or
e
court
.

Thecourtcannoti nsi
stt hattheaccusedshal
lkeeponstandingduringthetr
ialparti
cularl
ywhen
thet
r i
ali
sl ongandar duous.Pleaserefert
orati
olai
ddownbyHon' bleApexCour tinthecaseof
AvatarSinghv .M.P.-reportedin1982SC1260.Hon'bleSupremeCour tdir
ectedal lHighCour
ts
tomakepr ov i
sioninthisregardinthei
rcri
minalmanual
s.PleaserefertoparaNo. 141ofthe
Cri
mi nal
Manual .
Thecour thas, undert heprovisotoSect ion327( 1)oft heCode, thepowert oorderthatany
parti
cularper son, witnessorpol i
ceofficernotunderexami nationshal l
notr emaininthecour t
room.Agener aldirectioncanbegi vent othePubl icPr osecut ort hatoccur rencewitnessest obe
exami nedar enotal l
owedt oremainint hecour thalltil
ltheirtur narri
v es.Whent heaccused
objectstot hepr esenceofapol iceoffi
cerorot herper soni nsidet hecour thall,
thetri
aljudge
hast oconsi derhi sobj ect
ions,havi
ngr egar dtothei ntelli
genceandt hesuscept ibi
l
iti
esoft he
classtowhi chhebel ongsandsuchot herr elevantcircumst ancesPl easer efertorati
olaiddown
byHon' bleApexCour tinthecaseofSt atev .CharulataJoshi -AI R1999SC1373.I nShy lendra
Kumarv .StateofBi har-AIR2002SC270, Hon'bleApexCour thasdi rectedthatthe
i
nv esti
gatingof f
icermustbepr esentatt het i
meoft ri
al ofmur dercasesandi fhef ai
lstobe
present,theSessi onsJudgemusti ssuesummonst ohi m.

Courtsshoul dmakedepr ecator

yremar ksaboutser i
ousl acunaori rregularit
yint he
i
nvestigationbyani nvestigat
ingoff
iceronlywheni tisabsol utel
ynecessar y.Cour tsshoul
dbear
i
nmi ndt het i
meconst rai
nt softhepoli
ceof f
icerint hepr esentsy stem, theill
-equipped
machiner ytheyhavet ocopewi th,t
hetraditi
onal apathyofr espect ableper sonst ocome
for
war dforgi v
ingev i
dencei ncri
minalcaseset c.whi char erealit
ieswhi cht hepol i
ceforcehas
toencount erwithwhileconduct i
nginvesti
gation.Pl easer ef
ert oratiolaiddownbyHon' bl
eApex
CourtinthecaseofSt ateofWestBengal v.MirMuhammedOmar-AI R2000SC2988; Shy amal
Ghoshv .St at
eofW.B–AI R2012SC3539; Babuv .Chennai –AIR2013SC1769; DayalSingh
andOr s.v.StateofUt t
aranchal –AIR2012SC3046; Kishanbhai v.St ateofGuj arat,r
eport
edi n
Manu/ SC/ 0004/2014.

Cri
mi naljusticeshoul dnotbeal lowedt obecomeacausal i
tyfort hewr ongscommi tt
edbyt he
i
nvest i
gat i
ngof fi
cer s.Theconcl usi onoft hecourtinacr iminal tri
alcannotbeal lowedt o
dependsol el
yont hepr obityofinv estigation.Evenift heinv
est igati
oni sill
egal orev en
suspicious, t
hecour tcani ndependent lyscruti
nizether estoft heev idenceuni nfluencedbyi ll
-
mot i
vatedi nvestigation.Ot herwise, cri
mi naltr
ialwil
l plummett othel evelofinv esti
gating
off
icersr ul
ingt or oost.Pleaser efert or ati
olaiddownbyHon' bleApexCour ti
nt hecaseofSt ate
ofKar natakav .Yar appaReddy-JT1999( 8)SC10=AI R2000SC185; Shy amal Ghoshv .State
ofW.B–AI R2012SC3539; Babuv .Chennai –AI R2013SC1769; DayalSinghandOr s.v.State
ofUttaranchal –AI R2012SC3046; Kishanbhai v.StateofGuj ar at,
repor t
edi n
Manu/ SC/ 0004/ 2014.

Duri
ngtheexaminat
ionofthei
nvest
igat
ingof
ficerbefor
ethecourt
,noobj ecti
oncanbet akent
o
hi
sreferr
ingt
othecasediaryf
il
eswhil
eanswer i
ngquesti
ons.Heisexpect edtoanswer
questi
onsonl
ywithref
erencet
owhathehasr ecordedduri
nginv
estigat
ion.-Pleaseref
erto
Secti
on172oftheCode.
Whenawi t
nessmakesment ionofthenameoft heanotherwitnessduringhistest
imonybef
ore
court
, ascertai
nwhet hertheotherwit
nessisnamedi nchargesheetornotandi fheisachar
ge-
sheetwi t
ness, af
terwr i
ti
nghisname, i
ndi
catehisrankascharge-sheetwitness.(
Forexampl
e
CW3) .Ifthatcharge-sheetwi
tnesshasalreadybeenexaminedasapr osecuti
onwitnesst
hen
giv
ether ankassi gnedt ohi
m whenhewasexami nedbeforecourt.

Theev i
denceofwi tnessesshallordi
nari
l
ybet akendowni nt hefor
m ofanar r
at i
v e.(pl
easerefer
toSection276( 2)oft heCode).Aft
errecordi
ngt heevidenceofeachwi t
nessi thast ober ead
overtot hewitnessi nthepresenceoftheaccusedasenj oinedbySection278( 1)oft heCode.If
thewitnessdeni esthecor r
ectnessofanypar toftheevidencet henthecor r
ect i
onshoul dnotbe
carr
iedouti nthedeposi ti
onbutinsteadthejudgehast omakeamemor andum i ncorporati
ng
theobjectionraisedbyt hewitnessandtheremar ksoft hejudge.(pl
easer efert oSect i
on278(2)
oftheCode) .Sect i
on280oft heCodeenabl esacour ttor ecordremarksregar dingt he
demeanouroft hewi tness.

Exami nationofChi l
dWi tness: Sect ion118oft heEv i
denceAct ,1872st atesthatal lper sonsar e
compet entt ot estifyunl ess,thecour tconsi der sthatt heyar epr eventedf r
om under standi ngthe
quest ionsputt ot hem orgi vingr at i
onal answer stot hosequest i
onsbyr easonoft enderage,
extremeol dageordi seasewhet herofbodyormi nd, oranyot hercauseoft hesameki nd.As
pert hepr ov isionsoft heOat hsAct ,1969, oathoraf f
irmat ionhast obemadebyal l witnesses
whomaybel awf ullyexami nedorwhomaygi veorber equi r
edt ogiv eev i
dencebef oreacour tof
l
aw.Howev er,thepr ov isot oSect ion4( 1)oft heOat hsActsay st hatwher ethewi tnessi sachi ld
under12y ear sofageandt hecour tisofopi niont hatt hought hewi tnessunder standst hedut y
ofspeaki ngt het ruth, hedoesnotunder standt henat ur eofoat horaf fi
rmat i
on,thensuch
witnessneednotmakeanyoat horaf firmat i
onandt heabsenceofsuchoat horaf f i
rmat i
on
shall notr enderi nadmi ssi bleanyev idencegi venbysuchwi tnessnoraf fecttheobl igat i
onof
suchwi tnesst ost atet het r
ut h.Thusi ft hechi l
dwi t
nessi sabov e12y ear sofage, oat hor
aff
irmat i
on, ast hecasemaybe, isamust .Butifthechi ldwi tnessi sbel ow12y ear sofaget hen
thecour thast oascer tainwhet hert hewi t
nessunder standst henat ur eoft heoathoraf fir
mat ion.
Inor dert oev aluat ethet estimoni al compet enceoft hechi ldwi tnessi nthisbehalf, thecour thas
toconductav oirdi re( pr el
imi naryexami nationofchi l
dwi tness)exami nationofthechi l
d
witness.Ther ecor dofsuchexami national soshoul dbepar toft hedeposi ti
onofsuchchi ld
witness.Tounder standt her eal probl em, thepr ovisot oSect ion4oft heOat hsAct , 1969must
ber eadal ongwi thSect ion118oft heI ndianEv i
denceActandSect ion7oft heOat hsAct .An
omi ssiont oadmi nisteranoat h,ev ent oanadul t,goesonl yt ot hecr edibili
tyofthewi tnessand
nothi scompet ency .Thequest i
onofcompet encyi sdeal twi thinSect ion118oft heI ndi an
EvidenceAct .Ever ywi tnessi scompet entunl esst heCour tconsi dershei sprevent edf rom
understandingthequest i
onsputtohim, orfrom giv i
ngr at
ionalanswer s,byreasonoft ender
years,extr
emeol dage, di
sease,whetherofbodyormi ndoranyot hercauseoft hesameki nd.It
shouldbeobser v edthatthereisalwayscompet encyi nfactunlesstheCour tconsiders
otherwise.Noot hergr oundofincompetencyi sgiv en.Therefor
e, unl
esst heOat hsActadds
additi
onal gr
oundsofi ncompetency,i
tisev i
dentt hatSect i
on118oft heIndi
anEv i
denceAct
mustpr evail
.TheOat hsActdoesnotdeal withcompet ency.Therefore,anomi ssi
ont otaket he
oathdoesnotaf fecttheadmi ssi
bil
it
yoft heev i
dence, unlesstheJudgeconsi dersotherwiset he
witnessiscompet ent
.

EvidenceofAccompl i
ceu/s133oft heEv i
denceAct ,
1872r eadwi t
hSect i
on114( b)oft heAct:
-
Sect i
on133oftheActprovidesthatanAccompl iceshal lbeacompet entwitnessagai nstan
accusedpersonandconv i
ctionisnotill
egalmerelybecausei tproceedsupont he
uncor r
obor
atedtesti
monyofanAccompl i
ce.Whereas, Section114( b)oft heActpr ovidesthat
anAccompl i
ceisunwor t
hyofcr edi
t,unl
essheiscor robor atedinmat er
ialparti
culars.Conjoi
nt
readingofboththesesecti
onssomet i
mesmi sguidet heSessi onsJudges.Ther efore,
i
ntricaci
esofboththesesectionsarerequir
edtobekepti nmi ndbyt heSessi onsJudges.

Hon' bleApexCour tint hecaseofSur eshChandr aBahr iv.Stat eofBi har ,repor tedi nAI R1994
SC2420hashel dinpar aNos.43t o45t hat :
-Sect i
on133deal witht het estimonyofan
accompl ice.Itcont empl atest hatandaccompl iceshal lbeacompet entwi tnessagai nstan
accusedper son, andaconv i
ctioni snotillegal mer el ybecausei tpr oceedsupont he
uncor r
obor atedt est imonyofanaccompl i
ce, Thef irstpar tenv isagest hatanaccompl icei n
otherwor dsagui l
tycompani oni ncrimeshal l beacompet entwi tnesswhi let hesecondpar t
statest hatconv i
ctioni snoti ll
egal merelybecausei tisbasedont heuncor robor atedt est i
mony
ofanaccompl ice.Buti foner eadS.133wi thillustration( b)ofS. 114i tmayl eadt ocer tain
amountofconf usionandmi sunder standingast ot her eal andt r
uei ntent i
onoft heLegi slature
becausequi tecont rarytowhati scont ainedi nS. 133i ll
ust r
ation( b)t oS. 114l ay sdown" thatan
accompl iceisunwor thyofcr edi t,unl
esshei scor robor atedi nmat erial particul ars."Acombi ned
readingoft het wopr ovisi
onst hati sS.133andi l
lustration( b)ofS. 114got oshowt hati twas
consi derednecessar ytopl acet helawofaccompl iceev i
denceonabet terf oot ingbyst at i
ngin
unambi guoust ermst hataccor di ngtoS. 133aconv ictioni s"noti llegal orinot herwor dsnot
unlawf ul"mer elybecausei tisf oundedont heuncor robor atedt est imonyofanaccompl icewhi l
e
accept ingt hatanaccompl icei sacompet entwi t
ness.Butatt hesamet i
met heLegi slat ur e
i
nt endedt oinv it
eat tenti
oni nt hei ll
ustrati
on( b)ofS. 114wi thav iewt oemphasi set hatt herule
cont ainedt her einaswel l
asi nS. 133ar epar tsofoneandt hesamesubj ectandnei thercanbe
i
gnor edint heexer ciseofj udici al di
scretionexcepti ncasesofv er yexcept ional nat ure.Howev er,
thedi ffi
cultyinunder standingt hecombi nedef fectoft heaf orement ionedt wopr ov i
si onsar i
ses
l
ar gelyduet ot heirpl acementatt wodif f
er entpl acesoft hesameAct .Itmaybenot i
cedt hat
i
llustration(b)at tachedt oS. 114i splacedi nChapVI IofEv i
denceActwhi l
eS. 133i si nser tedin
Chap.IXoft heAct .Thebettercoursewast oi nsertt heillustr
ation(
b)toS. 114asan
explanat i
onorinanycaseaspr ovi
sot oS. 133oft heActi nsteadofthei
ri nsertionattwo
dif
ferentpl acesandt hattooindifferentchapt ersofEv i
denceAct .I
nanycasesi nceanapprover
i
sgui l
tycompani oni ncri
meand, t
her efore,il
lustration( b)t oS.114providesar ul
eofcauti
ont o
whicht heCour tsshoul dhaveregar d.Itisnowwel lset t
ledt hatexcepti
nci rcumst ancesof
specialnat urei
tist hedutyoftheCour ttor aisethepr esumpt i
oninS.114i l
lustrati
on(b)andthe
Legisl
at urerequir
est hattheCour t
sshoul dmaket henat uralpresumpti
oni nt hatsecti
on.
Thoughaconv i
ctioncanbebasedonuncor robor atedev i
denceofanaccompl i
ceu/ s133ofthe
Actbutasar ul
eofpr udenceitisunsaf etopl acer elianceont heuncorrobor atedtesti
monyof
anappr ov erasrequi r
edbyill
ustrati
on( b)ofS. 114oft heAct .

Ratiolaiddowni nthecaseofSur eshChandraBahr

i(supr
a)isfoll
owedbyHon' bl
eApexCourti
n
thecaseofFr ancisStanlyaliasStali
nv.Int
ell
i
genceOffi
cer
,NarcoticCont
rolBureau,
Thiruv
anant hapuram,reportedi nAIR2007SC794andsamei srel
ieduponinthecaseofJar
nail
Singhv .St
ateofPunj ab,reportedinAIR2010SC3699.

Section30oft heEv i
denceActpr ov idesthatwhenmor epersonst hanonearebeingt r
iedjoint
ly
forthesameof fenceorof f
ences, andaconf essi
onmade, beforethecommencementoft r
ial,
by
oneofsuchper sonsaf f
ectinghimsel fandsomeot herofsuchper sonsinrespectofsame
offenceoral lt
heof f
encesaf fectinghi mselfandsomeot herofsuchper sonsisproved,t
he
Cour tmay ,wher ethereisotherr elevantev i
denceagainstsuchot herpersonorpersons,take
i
nt oconsi der
ationsuchconf essionasl endi
ngcredenceagai nstsuchotherpersonorper sons
aswel l
asagai nsttheper sonwhomakessuchconf ession.Tounder st
andsaidprovisi
on
i
llustrati
onsaregi venwhi chr eadasunder :-

(a)AandBarejoint
lyt
ri
edformurderofC.I
tispr
ovedt
hatAsai
d-"
BandImur
der
edC"
.The
courtmayconsi
dertheef
fectoft
hisconf
essi
onasagai
nstB.

(b)Aisonhistri
alf
orthemurderofC.Thereisevidencet
oshowthatCwasmur der
edbyAand
B,andthatBsaid-"AandImurderedC."Thi
sst at
ementmaynotbetakeni
ntoconsi
der
ati
onby
thecourtagai
nstA,asBisnotbei
ngjoi
ntlytr
ied.

Meaningther
eby,
tomakesuchconfessi
onalst
atementadmissibl
e,t
herehastobeajointt
rai
l
ofaccusedandpersonmaki
ngconfessi
onal
statement
,suchconfessi
onalst
atementismade
befor
ethecommencementoftr
ial
,suchstat
ementmustbeaf fect
inghi
mselfandother
accusedofsameof
fenceandsuchst
atementshoul
dbepr
ovedasadmi
ssi
ble.

Arti
cle20( 2)oftheConst ituti
onpr ovidest hat:
-Noper sonshal lbepr osecut edandpuni shedf or
thesameof f
encemor et hanonce.Sect i
on300( 1)oft heCodepr ovidest hat :
-( 1)Aper sonwho
hasoncebeent ri
edbyaCour tofcompet entjuri
sdi ct
ionf oranof f
enceandconv ict
edor
acquittedofsuchof f
enceshal l,whi l
esuchconv icti
onoracqui ttalremai nsi nf or ce,notbel i
able
tobet r
iedagainfort hesameof fence, noront hesamef act sforanyot herof f encef orwhi cha
dif
ferentchar gefrom t heonemadeagai nsthi m mighthav ebeenmadeundersub- section(1)of
secti
on221, orforwhi chhemi ghthav ebeenconv ictedundersub- sect i
on( 2)t hereof.But
Section300( 2)oft heCodepr ov i
dest hat :-(2)Aper sonacqui tt
edorconv ictedofanyof fence
maybeaf t
erwardst ried, witht heconsentoft heSt ateGov ernment ,foranydi stinctoffencef or
whichasepar atechar gemi ghthav ebeenmadeagai nsthi m atthef ormert ri
al undersub-
secti
on( 1)ofsection220andExpl anationt oSection300oft hepr ovidest hatt hedi smissal ofa
compl aint,orthedischar geoft heaccused, i
snotanacqui t
talforthepur posesoft hissect i
on.
Theconj oi
ntreadingal lthesepr ovisionssomet i
mecr eatesconf usi onamongstj udges.To
under standtheintricaci esoft hesai dpr ov isi
on,il
lustrati
ongi venunderSect i
on300oft heCode
i
sr equiredt oseen.I l
lust rati
onsr eadasunder :-

(a)Ai
st r
ieduponachar geofthef
tasaservantandacquit
ted.Hecannotaft
erwar
ds,whi
let
he
acqui
tt
alremainsinfor
ce, bechar
gedwit
htheftasaservant,or
,uponthesamefacts,
wit
hthef
t
simpl
y,orwit
hcriminalbreachoftr
ust
.

(b)Aist
ri
edforcausinggri
evoushurtandconv
ict
ed.Theper
soni
njur
edaf
ter
war
dsdi
es.Amay
betri
edagai
nforculpabl
ehomi ci
de.

(c)Ai
schar
gedbef
oretheCour
tofSessionandconv
ict
edofthecul
pabl
ehomi
cideofB.Amay
notaf
ter
war
dsbetr
iedonthesamefactsfort
hemurderofB.

(d)AischargedbyaMagistr
ateofthefi
rstcl
asswith,
andconv i
ctedbyhi
m of,v
olunt
ari
l
y
causi
nghur tt
oB.Amaynotaf ter
wardsbetri
edforvoluntar
il
ycausinggri
evoushurtt
oBont
he
samef act
s,unlesst
hecasecomeswi t
hinsub-
sect
ion( 3)ofthesecti
on.

(e)AischargedbyaMagi
str
ateoft
hesecondclasswi
th,andconvi
ctedbyhim of
,thef
tof
proper
tyfr
om theper
sonofB.Amaysubsequentl
ybechargedwit
h,andtr
iedfor,
robberyon
thesamef act
s.

(
f)A,
BandCarechar
gedbyaMagist
rat
eoft
hefi
rstcl
asswi
th,
andconvi
ctedbyhim of
,
r
obbi
ngD.A,
BandCmayaf t
erwar
dsbechar
gedwith,
andt
ri
edfor
,dacoi
tyonthesamef act
s.
EvidenceofAccompliceoncehishasbeengr antedpardonu/s306oftheCode:-Thoughthe
conv i
cti
onofanaccusedont hetesti
monyofanaccompl i
cecannotbesaidt
obei ll
egal
,yett
he
Cour t
swi l
l
,asamat t
erofpract
ice,notaccepttheevi
denceofsuchawi t
nesswithout
corroborat
ioninmateri
alpar
ti
cular
s.Forcorroborat
iveevi
dencetheCourtmustlookatthe
broadspect r
um oft
he

Accompl ice'
s/Appr over'sversionandt henf i
ndoutwhet herther
eisotherev idencet o
corroborateandl endassur ancetot hatv ersi
on.Thenat ureandext entofsuchcor roborati
on
maydependupont hef actsofdi f
ferentcases.Cor r
oborationneednotbei nthefor m ofocul ar
testi
monyofwi tnessesandmaybeev eninthef orm ofcircumstanti
alevidence.Cor roborative
evidencemustbei ndependentandnotv agueorunr eli
able.Wherethestat ementofaccompl ice
wasv ivi
di nexplanationandi nspi
redf ullconfidenceoft heCourttopasst heconv i
ctionoft he
accusedf ortheof fenceswi t
hwhi cht heywer echar gedandt hecorroborativeevidencet othe
aforesai
dst atementl eftnodoubti nthemi ndoft heCour tregar
dingtheinv olv
ementoft he
accusedi nthecommi ssionoft hecr i
mef orwhicht heyhadbeenconv i
ctedandsent enced.
Suchconv i
cti
ononbasi soft est
imonyofaccompl i
cewoul dnotbet er
medasbadandl i
able.

I
nSur eshChandr aBahri v.St
ateofBihar,(supra)thi
sCour twhiledeali
ngwi t
hthecasewher e
theApprov erwasgrantedpar donbyt hecommi t
talCourtobservedthateverypersonaccept
ing
thetenderofpardonmadeundersub- sect
ion( 1)ofSecti
on306hast obeexami nedasa
witnessintheCourtoft heMagi str
atetaki
ngcogni zanceoft heoffenceandinthesubsequent
tri
al,i
fany.Theexami nationoftheaccompl iceinsuchasi tuat
ionwashel dtobemandat ory
whichcouldnotbedi spensedwi t
h.Referr
ingtoaFul lBenchJudgmentoft heGujaratHi
gh
CourtinKal uKhodav.St ate,
AIR1962Guj 283:

"
Ift
hesai ddef
ectofnotexaminingtheapproveratt
hecommi t
talst
agebythecommitt
ing
Magistr
ateisr
ecit
if
iedlat
er,
nopr ej
udicecanbesaidtobecausedtoanaccusedper
sonand
t
herefor
et het
ri
alcannotbesaidtobev i
ti
atedonthataccount
."

Thereisnol egalobligationont hetri

al Courtorarightinfav ouroftheaccusedt oinsistforthe
compliancewi t
ht her equirementofSect ion306(4)oft heCodeSect i
on307oft heCode
provi
desacompl etepr ocedur ef orr
ecor dingthestatementofanaccompl icesubj ectonlytothe
complianceofcondi tionsspeci fi
edinsub- secti
on( 1)ofSect i
on306oft heCode.Thel aw
mandat esthesatisfactionoft heCour tgranti
ngpar don,thattheaccusedwoul dmakeaf ull
and
truedi
sclosureoft heci r
cumst anceswi thinhisknowl edgerelati
vetotheoffenceandt oevery
otherpersonconcer ned, whet heraspr incipalorabettor,i
nthecommi ssi
ont hereof.I
tisnot
necessarytocompl ywi t
ht her equir
ementofSect ion306( 4)oft heCodewhent hepar donis
tender
edbyt hetr
ial Cour t
.Pleaser efertoNar ayanChet anram Chaudharyv .Stateof
Mahar
asht
ra,
repor
tedi
nAI
R2000SC4640.

TheSessionsJudgecant akecogni zanceoft heof fenceonlyagai nstthoseaccusedper sons

whoar ecommi tt
edt ohim byt heMagi strateconcer ned(section193oft heCode) .Ifhehast o
addanewaccusedper sonwhosecompl icit
yisdi scer ni
blefrom theprosecuti
onr ecords,then
theSessionsJudgewi llhav etowai tunt i
lthest agef orexerciseofhispowerunderSect ion319
oftheCodei sreached.Pl easer efertoratiolaiddownbyHon' bl
eApexCour ti
nt hecaseof
Ranji
tSinghv.StateofPunj ab, r
eportedinAI R1998SC3148; Sar
abjitSi
nghv .StateofPunj ab–
AIR2009SC2792; Rakeshv .St ateofHar yana–AI R2001SC2521.Buti nthecasesofan
accusedwhoar epubl i
cser v ants,beforepassi nganor deru/s319oft heCode, sancti
oni s
requi
red(forexampleof fencespuni shableundert hepr ovi
sionsofPr event
ionofCor r
upti
onAct )
butsuchsanct i
onisnotr equi redwhenof fencesar epunishableu/ s409,420,467, 468,471et c.
ofIPC).

Procedur
etobefol
lowedbythetr
ialCour
tint
heeventofcr
osscases:-Hon'
bleApexCour ti
n
thecaseofNat
hil
alv.St
ateofU.P.,
repor
tedi
n1990(Supp)SCC145haspoi ntedoutthe
procedur
etobefol
lowedbythetr
ialCour
tint
heeventofcr
osscases.Itwasobservedthus:
-

"Wet hinkt hatt hef airpr ocedur etoadopti namat t

erl
ikethepr esentwher et
her ear ecr oss
cases, i
st odi rectt hatt hesamel ear nedJudgemustt rybotht hecrosscasesoneaf terthe
other.Af t
ert her ecor dingofev idencei nonecasei scompleted, hemustheart hear gument sbut
hemustr eser vet hej udgment .Ther eafter,
hemustpr oceedtoheart hecr osscaseandaf ter
recordingal ltheev idencehemustheart heargumentsbutreser vethej udgmenti nt hatcase.
Thesamel earnedJudgemustt her eaf t
erdisposeofthemat tersbyt wosepar atejudgment s.I
n
decidingeachoft hecases, hecanr elyonlyont heevi
dencer ecordedi nthatpar ti
cul arcase.
Theev i
dencer ecor dedi nt hecr osscasecannotbel ookedinto.Norcant heJudgebei nfluenced
bywhat everisar guedi nt hecr osscase.Eachcasemustbedeci dedont hebasi soft he
evidencewhi chhasbeenpl acedonr ecordinthatpart
icul
arcasewi thoutbeingi nfluencedi n
anymannerbyt heev idenceorar gument surgedinthecrosscase.Butbot hthejudgment smust
bepr onouncedbyt hesamel ear nedJudgeoneaf tert
heother .
"

Ifaf
terful
ltrai
landonproperappreciati
onoforal anddocument ar
yevidence,SessionsJudge
comest otheconclusi
on,hemayacqui t/convi
cttheaccusef ort
hechar geslevel
edagainsthi
m.
Andif,accusedisconvi
ctedandisorderedt ounderimpr i
sonmentfortheterm ofthreeyear
sor
l
ess,SessionsJudgemayr el
easet heaccusedonbai l,cer
tai
nlyaft
erimposingcer t
ain
condit
ions.Sessi
onsjudgeshoul
dnor mall
ysuspendt hesentenceandnott heconv i
cti
on,as
suspensi
onoftheor derofconv
icti
onshouldbeexercisedinexcept
ional
case.Pl
easeref
erto
rat
iolai
ddowni nthecaseofK.C.Sareenv.CBI,Chandigarh,AI
R2001SC3320.Forsuspendi
ng
convi
cti
on,Sessi
onsJudgemayt akesupportoftherati
olaiddownbyHon'bl
eApexCourtinthe
caseofNavjotSinghSidhuv.St
ateofPunjab,repor
tedinAI R2007SC1003.

Ifaccusedisacqui
ttedaf
terthetri
al,
Sessi
onsJudgeshoulddir
ectt
heaccusedtoexecutebai
l
bondwi thsur
eti
estoappearbeforetheappell
atecour
t,asandwhensuchcourti
ssuesnoti
cein
respectofanyappealorpeti
ti
onf i
l
edagainstthej
udgmentofacqui
tt
alandsuchbailbond
shouldbeinforceforsi
xmont hs.(Pl
easeref
ertoSecti
on437-Aoft
heCode).

Commonmi
stakescommi
tt
edbyt
heJudges:
-

a)Inmanycasesneit
herthejudgmentnort her ecord&proceedi
ngsshowcompl i
anceof
Secti
on232oftheCode.Veryof t
ent heaccusedar ecall
edupontoenteronthei
rdefence
befor
ereachi
ngthestageunderSect ion233oft heCodeCompl i
anceofSecti
ons232and233
oftheCodebytheSessionsJudgesi smandat ory.-K.MoiduMammoov .St
ateofKerala,
repor
tedi
n2009Cr .
L.J.4045(FullBench).

b)Thespeci
fi
cv er
sionoft
hedefenceasstatedduri
ngexaminati
onoftheaccusedunder
Secti
on313oftheCodeorasstatedintheseparat
ewr i
tt
enstat
ementfil
edunderSecti
on233(
2)
oftheCodever
yof t
endonotfi
ndar efer
enceinthejudgment
.Thishastobedone.

c)Thelawdoesnotenvisageapersonbeingconvi
ctedforanof f
encewithoutasent
encebei
ng
i
mposed.Everyconv
ict
ionshouldbef ol
l
owedbyasent ence.Pleaseref
ertorati
olai
ddownby
Hon'bl
eApexCourti
nthecaseofT. K.Musali
arv.Venkatachal
am -AIR1956SC246.

d)Thej udgment :-Secti

on354oft heCodeinterali
astipul
atest hecont ent
softhejudgmentt hat
i
st obepr onouncedbyacr iminalcourt.I
tshouldcontainthepoi ntsfordeter
minationandt he
decisiononeachpoi ntandt hereasonsforthedecisi
on.Thej udgmentshouldalsospeci fythe
Sectionoft heIndianPenal Codeoranyot herlawunderwhi cht heaccusedi sconvictedor
acquitted.Incase, t
heaccusedi sacquitt
ed,apartfr
om statingt heoffenceofwhichhei s
acquittedt hejudgmentshoul ddir
ectthatheshallbesetatl iberty
.Ifheisincustodyt he
j
udgmentshal lstatethatheshal lberel
easedfrom pri
sonf orthwithunlesshiscontinued
detentionisnecessar yinconnectionwithanyothercase.Whenaper sonissentencedt odeat h,
thesent enceshoul ddir
ectthathebehangedbyt heneckt il
l heisdead.Adeat hsent enceshall
beimposedsubjectt
oconf
ir
mationbytheHon'
bl
eHighCourtf
orwhi
chpurposethe
pr
oceedingsshal
lbesubmi
ttedt
ot heHon'
bl
eHighCourtaspr
ovi
dedunderSect
ion366oft
he
Code.

e)Evenwhenanaccusedper soni sacquittedont hegroundofunsoundnessofmi nd,t

he
j
udgmentshoul d,asenjoi
nedbySect ion334oft heCode, r
ecor daf i
ndingwhet hersuch
accusedcommi t
tedtheacts(suchascausi ngt hedeat hbyst abbingorot hermeans)at t
ri
buted
tohim.Insuchacaset hecour tshal
l notforthwi t
hsethi m atlibertyorreleasehimf rom
custody.Hewi l
lhavetobedirectedtobedet ainedi naGov ernmentment alhealt
hcent eror
orderedtobedeliver
edtoanyr elat
iveorf r
ienduponanappl icationbysuchr el
ativ
eorf ri
end
andonhi sfurni
shingsecuri
tytothesat i
sfactionoft hecour taspr ovidedunderSect ion335of
theCode.Thisisbecauseoft hehomi cidalordanger ouspropensi ti
esal r
eadyexhi bi
tedbythe
accused.Suchaccusedor deredtobedet ainedi nt hement alheal t
hcent erwillbesubjectto
furt
herordersoftheStateGov er
nmentunderSect ion339oft heCode.

f)Veryof t
eninadmi ssiblestat
ement smadebyi nv esti
gat ingof f
icersarebl i
ndlyrecordedby
SessionsJudges.Thedef encelawy ermi ghtaskt hei nvest igatingof fi
cerwhet herapar ti
cular
witnessmadeapar t
icularstat
ementbef orehi m whenhequest i
onedt hesai dwi t
ness.The
i
nv estigatingoffi
cermayr eadi
lyanswert hequest ion.Thedef encel awy erisnotentitl
edtoask
suchaquest i
on,ast heanswert owhi chwoul dbei ncl earv iolati
onoft hebarunderSect i
on162
oftheCode.I nstancesar enotr arewhenst atement sofi nv estigatingof f
icersfrom thewitness
boxt hatwhent heaccusedwasaskedr egar dingt hemannerofper petrati
ngt hecrimehe
explainedt hesameandt heallegedv ersionoft heaccusedasgi v enbyt heinvesti
gat i
ngofficer
i
sr ecor dedbyt heSessi onsJudge.Thi si snotper mi ssible, hencecannotbeal l
owed.I ti
sal so
requiredt ober emember edthatwheni nv estigatingof ficerwr i
tesal ettertoanyper sonand
suchper sonresponsesbyr eplylett
er ,suchr epl
yl etterishi tbySect ion162oft heCode.-Kal i
Ram v .St ateofH.P.,reportedinAI R1973SC2773( Thr eeJudge) .

g)Suppose, i
namur dercaseaPost -mortem reporti
sadmi tt
edbyt hedefencelawyerandits
genuinenessandaut henti
cityisnotdisputed,
whet heri
nsuchasi tuati
on,canitbereadas
substanti
veevidencetopr oveitscontentswithoutdoctorconcer
nedbei ngexamined?-Held-
Yes.Pleaserefertotheratiolaiddownbyt heThr eeJudgesofHon' bl
eApexCour ti
nt hecaseof
Akhtarv.Stat
eofUt taranchal–AI R2009SC( Supp)1676( Thr
eeJudges) .

h)Whenrecover
yisef
fectedpursuantt
oanystat
ementmadebytheaccusedand
document
/panchnamapreparedbytheInv
est
igat
ingOf
fi
cer
,mustnecessari
l
ybeatt
est
edby
i
ndependentwit
nesses?-Hel
d-No.Pl
easeref
ertorati
ol aidodwninthecaseofStateGovt.of
NCTofDelhiv.Suni
l,r
eport
edinAIR2000SCW 4398; Satbiral
iasLakhav.Stat
eofHaryana,
repor
tedi
nAIR2012SCW 5780andMusi rMubarkv .StateofHar y
ana,repor
tedinAIR2013SC
992.

i
)Mostoft heti
meadv ocat
esfortheaccusedraiseadef encethatthoughaccusedand
witnesses/vi
cti
m areknowingeachot hersi
ncelong, namesoft heassail
antswerenotgiv
ento
thedoctorwhot reat
edt hevict
im.Whetherinj
uredwi tnessisrequir
edt ogivedet
ail
s/namesof
theassailant
s,befor
et heDoctor?Hel
d-No.Pleaser efert orat
iolai
dodwni nthecaseofP.Babu
v.StateofAndhr aPradesh(1994(1)SCC388)=AI R1993SCW 3174-par a6t o8,i
twas
observedasf ol
lows:

"Ex.
P6i stheinjurycert
if
icate.Itappear sthatitwasnotedi nEx.
P6agai nstanentrythatthe
i
njuredwassai dtohavebeenst abbedbysomebody .Placi
ngmuchr eli
anceont hisentryPW- 10
wasaskedi nt hecrossexami nati
onast ohowi twasmade.PW- 10st atedthatthedeceased
statedsointhef ir
stinstance.Thel earnedcounsel rel
yi
ngont hisadmi ssionsoughtt ocontend
thatthedeceasedwasnotawar east owhost abbedhim.Weseenof orceinthissubmi ssi
on.It
i
samat terofcommonknowl edgethatsuchent r
yintheinjur
ycer t
if
icatedoesnotnecessar i
ly
amountt oast atement.Att hatstagethedoct orwasr equiredtofil
lupt hatcolumninanor mal
mannerandi twasnott hedut yofthedoct ort
oenqui r
ef r
om theinjuredpat i
entabouttheact ual
assail
antsandt hattheinqui r
ywoul dbeconf i
nedast ohowher eceivedtheinjur
iesnamel ythe
weaponsusedet c."

Sai
drat
ioi
sfol
l
owedi
nthef
oll
owi
ngcases:
-

1)Val
sonandAnr
.v.St
ateofKer
ala,
repor
tedi
nAI
R2008SCW 5203,
par
a40.

2)Mul
l
aandAnr
.v.St
ateofU.P.
,repor
tedi
n2010Cr
.L.
J.1440.

3)Ki
l
akkat
haPar
ambat
hSasi
andOr
s.v
.St
ateofKer
ala,
repor
tedi
nAI
R2011SC1064,
par
a11.

4)Dal
wadi
Gov
indAmar
singv
.St
ateofGuj
arat
,repor
tedi
n2004GLR1258,
par
a22.

j
)Anaccusedmemberofanunl awfulassembl
ynotarmedwi t
hdeadl
yweaponcanal so
convictedunderSect
ion149ofI PCwiththeai
dofotherSect
ionsofI
PC?Held-Yes.
-Please
ref
ert orati
olai
ddownbyFourJudgesofHon' bleApexCourtint
hecaseofMasalti
v.Stateof
U.P.-AI R1965SC202( FourJudges)
.
k)Impr i
sonmentofl i
femeansi mpr i
sonmentf orther emai nderoft hebi ological
lif
eoft he
conv ictunlessthesent encei scommut edorr emi ttedbyt heappr opr i
ateaut hori
ty.Hencet he
l
ifei mprisonmentdoesnotexpi reattheendof14y earsor20y ears.(AIR1961SC600; AI
R
1980SC2147; 1976( 3)SCC470; 1991SCC( Cr l)845andAI R1991SC2296) .Consequently,t
he
quest ionofsettingof funderSect i
on428oft heCode, theperiodofdet entionunder gonebyan
accusedasanunder tri
alpri
soneragai nstasent encef orli
feimpr isonmentcanar i
seonl yi
fan
orderi spassedbyt heappr opri
ategov ernmentei therunderSect i
on432oft heCodeorunder
Sect i
on55ofI .
P. C.readwithSect ion433( b)oft heCode.Pl easeal sor efertoResolut i
on
No. JLK/ 822012/1859/ J,dated23r dJanuar y,2014i ssuedbyGov er
nmentofGuj ar
at ,
wherein
guidel i
nesar ei
ssuedf orgranti
ngofr emi ssi
onaspr ov idedu/ s432oft heCode. -Pleaseal so
refert orati
olaiddowni nthecaseofSangeetv .Stat eofHar yana, r
epor tedinAIR2013SC447.

l
)Lif
eimprisonmentisnecessar
il
yri
gorous.-Ranj
i
tSinghv
.UnionTerr
it
oryofChandigarhand
anot
her-AIR1991SC2296.Hence, byvir
tueofSecti
on66I.
P.C.,
thei
mpr i
sonmentwhichthe
Cour
tcanimposei ndefaul
tofpaymentoffinetowhi
chanaccusedissentencedunderSecti
on
302I.
P.C.
,canonlyberigor
ous.

m)Whenar ecoveryfal
l
ingunderSection27oftheEvi
denceActissoughttobeprovedthrough
theinvest
igatingoffi
cer,
thenecessarywordorwordsindi
cati
ngauthor
shipofconceal
mentar e
notseenel i
citedinmanycases.-Pleaserefert
orat
iolai
ddownbyHon' bl
eDivisi
onBenchof
Hon'bl
eGuj aratHighCourtinthecaseofRameshbhaiHajabhaiChachi
yav.StateofGuj
arat,
report
edin2012( 3)GLR2250.

n)Thereisanunwhol esomepracti
ceofadminister
ingoatht
oapr osecutionwitnessand
thereaf
tergi
vi
ngupt hewitness.Thi
shasbeendepr ecat
edbyt hevari
ousHon' bl
eHi ghCourt
s.
Tenderingawitnessforcr
oss-examinat
iononlywit
houthebeingexami nedinchiefisa
procedurenotsancti
onedbylaw.Suchacour semayamountt ogivingupoft hewitness.-
SukhwantSinghv .St
ateofPunjab,r
eportedi
nAIR1995SC1601.

o)Itisalway sdesi
rabletoser i
all
ynumbereachoft hequesti
onsputtot heaccusedduringhis
exami nati
onunderSect i
on313t heCode.Thi swillnotonlyhelpthetr
ialcourttoadver
ttoany
parti
cularanswergi v
enbyt heaccusedi nr epl
yt oaspeci f
icquesti
on,itwil
lalsohelpt
he
appellatecourttoascert
aint heanswer,i
fany ,givenbyt heaccusedtoanyspeci fi
edquesti
on.
Thequest ionswhichcov ertheincri
minatingcircumst ancesshouldbecouchedi nsimple
sentences.Theyshoul dnotbecompl i
catedorcompoundsent encesdeali
ngwi thmorethanone
ci
rcumst ance.StateofPunjabv .SwaranSi ngh–AI R2005SC3114.
p)Theinvesti
gati
ngof f
icershoul
ddeposetotheexactwordsoft heaccusedwhichdisti
nctl
y
l
edt othefactdi
scovered.Thewordsatt
ribut
edtotheaccusedmustf i
ndaplaceinthe
deposit
ionoftheinvest
igati
ngoffi
cer
.Pleaseref
ertorat
iolaiddownbyHon' bleDiv
isi
onBench
ofHon'bleGujar
atHighCour ti
nthecaseofRameshbhai HajabhaiChachi
yav .St
ateofGujar
at,
report
edin2012( 3)GLR2250.

q)I
thascomet othenoticet hatwher
edeathpenal
tyisawardedforaconvicti
onunderSect i
on
302I.
P.C.
,noseparat
esent enceisseenawardedfortheconvi
cti
onforotheroffences.Thisi
s
i
ll
egal
.Separat
esentencesshoul dbeimposedforeachoftheotherof
fencesandi tshouldbe
menti
onedinthej
udgmentt hatuponexecut
ionofthedeathsent
ence,t
heot hersentencesshal
l
l
apse.

r)Theaccusedisconvi
ctedofmurderpunishableunderSect
ion302I.P.C.I
fdeat
hpenaltyi
s
notproposedtobeimposedont heaccused,thentheonlyot
heralt
ernati
veisi
mpr i
sonmentfor
l
ife.Si
ncetheSessi
onsJudgedoesnotpr oposet oimposecapit
alpunishmentontheaccused,
theJudgedoesnothearhim underSecti
on235( 2)t
heCodeont heproposedsentence.I
sthere
anyill
egal
it
yintheaboveprocedur
e?

Ans.Hon'bl
eApexCour tobservedthatifaSessionsJudgewhoconv i
ctstheaccusedunder
Secti
on302I .
P. C.(wit
horwi t
houttheaidofot herSections)doesnotproposetoawar ddeath
penalt
ythecour tneednotwast etimeonhear ingtheaccusedont hequest i
onofsentence.The
courtal
soheldt hatincaseswher etheJudgef eelsoriftheaccuseddemandsmor eti
mef or
heari
ngont hequest i
onofsent ence(especial
l
ywhent hejudgeproposestoimposedeat h
penalt
y)theprov i
sotoSection309( 2)oftheCodei snotabarf oraff
ordi
ngsucht i
me.-Ram
DeoChauhanv .StateofAssam –AI R2001SC2231( ThreeJudges).

s)UnderSect
ion354(3)theCode, i
fthesentenceimposedisi
mpri
sonmentf
orl
if
e,t
he
j
udgmenthast ost
atet hereasonsforthesentenceandift
hesent
encei
mposedi
soneofdeat
h,
thej
udgmenthastost atespecial
reasons.