1963 (4) TMI 91 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and legality of the charge under Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.).
2. Summary dismissal of the appeal by the High Court.
3. Alleged misdirection in the charge delivered by the Sessions Judge to the jury.
4. Evidence of the prosecutrix and its corroboration.
5. Determination of the age of the prosecutrix.
6. Use of previous statements made by the prosecutrix as substantive evidence.
7. Acceptance of the jury's verdict by the Sessions Judge.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Legality of the Charge under Section 222 Cr. P.C.:
The appellant contended that the charge was invalid as it did not specify the precise date and time of the alleged offence, as required by Section 222(1) Cr. P.C. The Supreme Court examined Section 222, which mandates that the charge must contain particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter charged. The Court held that while specific dates and times are ideal, the charge need not be invalid if it specifies a period during which the offence was committed, provided it gives the accused reasonable notice. The Court emphasized that procedural requirements should serve the ends of justice and not be overly technical. The Court concluded that the charge in this case was valid as it provided sufficient notice to the appellant.

2. Summary Dismissal of the Appeal by the High Court:
The High Court had summarily dismissed the appellant's appeal, which the appellant argued was improper. The Supreme Court referenced previous rulings, stating that summary dismissal is appropriate if the appeal raises no arguable points. The Court clarified that it is within the High Court's discretion to determine whether an appeal raises substantial questions of fact or law. The Court found no fault with the High Court's summary dismissal, as it indicated that the High Court had applied its mind to the merits of the appeal before dismissing it.

3. Alleged Misdirection in the Charge Delivered by the Sessions Judge to the Jury:
The appellant argued that the Sessions Judge misdirected the jury by leaving the question of the validity of the charge to them. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had already ruled on the validity of the charge, which was binding on the Sessions Judge. The Court concluded that there was no misdirection, as the Sessions Judge's statement did not prejudice the appellant.

4. Evidence of the Prosecutrix and its Corroboration:
The appellant contended that the Sessions Judge did not properly instruct the jury on the need for corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony. The Supreme Court reviewed the charge and found that the Sessions Judge had adequately explained the importance of corroboration and the need for the jury to be convinced of the prosecutrix's truthfulness. The Court concluded that the charge was fair and did not constitute a misdirection.

5. Determination of the Age of the Prosecutrix:
The appellant argued that the Sessions Judge failed to instruct the jury on the onus of proof regarding the prosecutrix's age. The Supreme Court found that the Sessions Judge had summarized the evidence on the girl's age and had instructed the jury to decide whether she was below 16 years. The Court held that the failure to reiterate the onus of proof at this stage did not constitute a misdirection, as the jury had already been informed of the prosecution's burden of proof.

6. Use of Previous Statements Made by the Prosecutrix as Substantive Evidence:
The appellant argued that the Sessions Judge wrongly instructed the jury that previous statements made by the prosecutrix were not substantive evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the Sessions Judge's instruction, stating that previous statements are primarily used to contradict the witness and are not substantive evidence. The Court found no error in the Sessions Judge's explanation of the legal position.

7. Acceptance of the Jury's Verdict by the Sessions Judge:
The appellant contended that the Sessions Judge should have treated the jury's verdict as perverse and not accepted it. The Supreme Court noted that the Sessions Judge had considered the jury's verdict and found no reason to deem it perverse. The Court emphasized that the jury's role is to decide questions of fact, and the Sessions Judge's acceptance of their verdict was appropriate.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the charge, the summary dismissal by the High Court, and the jury's verdict. The Court found no misdirection in the Sessions Judge's charge to the jury and concluded that the appellant's arguments lacked merit. The appellant was ordered to surrender to his bail bond.