- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ramyed Rai And Others v. State Of Bihar .
Factual and Procedural Background
Appellants 2 and 3 (Appellant 1 having died during the pendency of the appeal) were prosecuted for offences under Sections 435 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution stemmed from a long-standing land dispute over Plot No. 1100 in Village Rampur, Tengrahi. On 4 March 1951, a mob allegedly including the appellants burned a palani (hut) and a haystack claimed by Kailash Rai, who asserted ownership and possession despite an adverse decree dated 16 December 1950 (under appeal at the time of the incident).
The Committing Court found a prima facie case and committed the appellants to the Court of the Second Assistant Sessions Judge, Chapra, for jury trial. The jury returned a majority verdict of guilt, but the Assistant Sessions Judge disagreed and made a reference to the Patna High Court under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), expressing the view that the appellants were merely destroying their own property and could not be guilty of mischief by fire.
A Division Bench of the Patna High Court overruled objections to the jury charge, declared the reference incompetent, nevertheless accepted the majority verdict, convicted the appellants and sentenced each to six months’ rigorous imprisonment. Special Leave to Appeal was thereafter granted by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Patna High Court, when dealing with a reference under Section 307 (3) CrPC, erred in accepting the jury’s majority verdict without itself considering the entire evidence on record.
- Whether the High Court’s failure to follow the statutory mandate of Section 307 (3) CrPC required the Supreme Court to set aside the convictions and sentences.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The High Court violated Section 307 (3) CrPC by limiting its consideration to alleged defects in the jury charge and by failing to assess the whole of the evidence before accepting the majority verdict.
- Before the Supreme Court, counsel urged that the entire evidence be re-examined so that a proper determination could be made in accordance with Section 307 (3).
State’s Arguments
- While the opinion notes that both sides invited the Supreme Court to examine the evidence, no distinct substantive argument by the State was recorded beyond supporting the High Court’s decision.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Akhlakali Hayatalli v. State of Bombay, (1954) SCR 435 | Approved the Privy Council approach to references under Section 307 CrPC, stressing that the High Court must consider the entire evidence and give due weight to the jury’s opinion. | Relied upon to reaffirm the mandatory procedure under Section 307 (3) and to evaluate the High Court’s omission. |
| Ramanugrah Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1946 PC 151 | Set out guiding principles for High Court intervention on a reference: when to accept or disregard a jury verdict, and the necessity of reviewing the whole record. | Quoted extensively; its principles were adopted as the “correct method of approach” in assessing the Patna High Court’s conduct. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Justice Bhagwati, speaking for the Supreme Court, held that Section 307 (3) CrPC expressly obliges the High Court, when faced with a reference from a Sessions Judge, to: (i) consider the entire body of evidence; (ii) give due weight to the views of both the Sessions Judge and the jury; and (iii) thereafter decide whether to acquit or convict, exercising all appellate powers if necessary.
The Court adopted the Privy Council test (as endorsed in Akhlakali Hayatalli): a reference is justified only if no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict impugned; otherwise the jury’s view must prevail. Because the Patna High Court confined itself to defects in the jury charge, it neither reviewed the evidence nor applied the mandated test. This constituted a clear violation of Section 307 (3).
The Supreme Court declined the invitation of counsel to itself weigh the evidence afresh, reasoning that the proper course was to remit the matter so the High Court could fulfil its statutory duty in the first instance.
Holding and Implications
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES SET ASIDE; MATTER REMANDED TO THE HIGH COURT.
The judgment of the Patna High Court was vacated for non-compliance with Section 307 (3) CrPC. The case was remitted to the High Court with directions to consider the entire evidence and decide the reference in accordance with law. The appellants were ordered to remain on their existing bail. The decision reinforces the procedural safeguards governing references under Section 307 but does not create new substantive precedent beyond reiterating established principles.
Bhagwati, J.— Appellants 2 and 3, who are the surviving appellants after the death of Appellant 1 during the pendency of this appeal, were charged with having committed offences under Sections 435 & 436 of the Indian Penal Code and were tried by the Second Assistant Sessions Judge of Saran, Chapra, with the aid of a jury. The jury returned a majority verdict that both of them were guilty of the offences under those sections. The Assistant Sessions Judge disagreed with the said verdict and made a reference to the High Court of Judicature at Patna under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said reference was heard by a Division Bench of that High Court. The learned judges of the High Court overruled the contentions which were urged before them in regard to the charge to the jury being defective and further held that the reference, was, in the circumstances, not competent. They, however, without anything more accepted the majority verdict and held the appellants guilty of the offences under Sections 435 & 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to six months' rigorous imprisonment each. The appellants obtained from this Court special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution and hence this appeal.
2. The facts leading up to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows: There was a dispute between the parties as to title to Plot No. 1100 of Village Rampur, Tengrahi. One Kailash Rai claimed to be the owner of that plot and also claimed to be in possession of a Palani standing in a portion of that plot as also of a Punjaul i.e a haystack in its vicinity. There had been proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in regard to this area leading up to a title suit being TS No. 58/8 of 1948/50 filed by Kailash Rai against the appellants in regard to the same. A decree had been passed on December 16, 1950, in that title suit dismissing the claim of Kailash Rai. An appeal had been filed by Kailash Rai against that decree and that appeal was pending at the date of the occurrence. On March 4, 1951, Kailash Rai was sitting in the Palani and at about 3 to 4 p.m a mob consisting of about 100 to 125 persons including the appellants all armed with lathis, bhallas and pharsas came to the Palani and began to demolish the same. Kailash Rai remonstrated and the deceased Appellant 1 ordered that the Palani should be set on fire. Appellant 2 thereupon set fire to the Palani with a match stick and Appellant 3 set fire to the Panjaul. The first information report of this occurrence was lodged at Gopalganj Police Station at 8 p.m the same night. The officer-in-charge of Gopalganj Police Station investigated the case and challaned the appellants charging them with having committed offences under Sections 435 & 436 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The Committing Court found a prima facie case made out against the appellants and sent them up for trial by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Second Court, Chapra, who tried them by a jury. The jury returned a majority verdict of guilty against the appellants. The Assistant Sessions Judge, however, disagreed with that verdict and made a reference to the High Court stating in the letter of reference that on the evidence recorded before him the appellants had been in possession of the Palani and the Panjaul but were dispossessed of the same some time prior to the passing of the decree in the title suit on December 16, 1950, and were therefore justified in taking steps for recovery of the possession thereof from Kailash Rai on March 4, 1951, and if in that process the appellants set fire to the Palani and the Panjaul they were only destroying their own property and were not guilty of the offence of committing mischief by fire as alleged by the prosecution. The Assistant Sessions Judge tried to analyse the working of the minds of the jury in arriving at the verdict which they did and though he agreed with the alleged finding of fact reached by the jury in regard to the possession of the Palani and the Punjaul, disagreed with the law as allegedly applied by the jury and therefore disagreed with the majority verdict.
4. When the reference was heard before the High Court, the counsel for the appellants only contended that the charge addressed by the Assistant Sessions Judge to the jury was defective and he did not invite the High Court, as he should have done, to consider the entire evidence and to acquit or convict the appellants of the offences of which the jury could have convicted them upon the charges framed and placed before it, after giving due weight to the opinions of the learned Sessions Judge and the jury as required by Section 307(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, therefore, only considered the objections which had been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants before it in regard to the charge being defective and overruled them, accepted the majority verdict, convicted the appellants, and sentenced them as above.
5. We are of opinion that in so doing the High Court was clearly in error and acted in violation of the provisions of Section 307(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 307(3) provides:
“In dealing with the case so submitted the High Court may exercise any of the powers which it may exercise on an appeal, and subject thereto it shall, after considering the entire evidence and after giving due weight to the opinions of the Sessions Judge and the jury, acquit or convict such accused of any offence of which the jury could have convicted him upon the charge framed and placed before it; and, if it convicts him, may pass such sentence as might have been passed by the Court of Sessions.”
6. We had occasion to consider this provision in Akhlakali Havatalli v. State of Bombay (1954) SCR 435 where we approved of the following observations of Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ramanugrah Singh v. The Emperor AIR 1946 PC 151:
“The powers of the High Court in dealing with the reference are contained in sub-section (3). It may exercise any of the powers which it might exercise upon an appeal, and this includes the power to call fresh evidence conferred by Section 428. The Court must consider the whole case and give due weight to the opinions of the Sessions Judge and jury, and then acquit or convict the accused. In Their Lordships' view, the paramount consideration in the High Court must be whether the ends of justice require that the verdict of the jury should be set aside. In general, if the evidence is such that it can properly support a verdict either of guilty, or not guilty, according to the view taken of it by the trial court, and if the jury take one view of the evidence and the judges think that they should have taken the other, the view of the jury must prevail, since they are the judges of fact. In such a case a reference is not justified, and it is only by accepting their view that the High Court can give due weight to the opinion of the jury. If, however, the High Court considers that upon the evidence no reasonable body of men could have reached the conclusion arrived at by the jury, then the reference was justified and the ends of justice required that the verdict be disregarded.”
7. This was pronounced by us to be the correct method of approach in a reference under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was incumbent on the High Court when the reference was heard by it to consider the entire evidence and come to its own conclusion whether the evidence was such that it could properly support the verdict of guilty against the appellants. If the High Court came to the conclusion that the evidence was such that it was possible for the jury to take the view that it did even though the judge thought that they should have taken another view the reference would not have been justified and the High Court should have accepted the opinion of the jury. If the High Court was however of opinion upon the evidence that no reasonable body of men could have reached the conclusion arrived at by the jury the reference would have been quite justified and the ends of justice required that the verdict should be disregarded. The High Court, however, only considered the arguments in regard to the defect in the charge to the jury addressed before it by the learned counsel for the appellants and did not consider the entire evidence which was on the record before it. In not having done so, we are clearly of opinion that it violated the provisions of Section 307(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. We are accordingly of opinion that the judgment of the High Court accepting the majority verdict and convicting the appellants and sentencing them as above without considering the entire evidence was clearly wrong and the conviction of the appellants and the sentences passed upon them should be set aside.
9. We were invited by learned counsel for the parties appearing before us to consider the entire evidence for ourselves and come to the conclusion which, according to the provisions of Section 307(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court should have done. We do not think that that is the proper procedure to adopt and we therefore allow the appeal, and remand this matter to the High Court to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 307(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and deal with the same in accordance with law. The appellants will continue on the same bail as before.
Alert