- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Emperor Prosecutor v. Bhuilotan Singh And Others Accused.
Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion arises from a criminal trial involving five accused persons: Bhuilotan Singh, Gobind Singh, Dipan Singh, Juglal Singh and Bipat Singh. After the trial, the Jury returned a unanimous verdict: “We unanimously find all the accused not guilty.” The learned Sessions Judge, however, believed that the case against the five accused had been fully established and disagreed with the Jury's verdict. The Judge therefore exercised his statutory right to refer the case to the High Court under section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr PC).
The record contains two recorded exchanges between the Judge and the Jury after the verdict:
- Q: “Do you find that it was the dead body of Subans?” — A: “We have got doubts as to that even.”
- Q: “You say that the accused are not guilty, do you hold they were not present at the time of crime”?
- A: “Yes.”
On reference under section 307 Cr PC, this Court considered the entire evidence, took into account the views of the Sessions Judge and the Jury, and, after discussing the evidence, convicted Bhuilotan, Dipan and Gobind of murdering Subans under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to transportation for life. The order concludes with the directive: “Order accordingly.”
Legal Issues Presented
- On a reference under section 307 Cr PC, what is the duty of the High Court in relation to the evidence and the opinions of the Sessions Judge and the Jury?
- Does the absence of recorded reasons from the Jury for their verdict prevent the High Court from examining the evidence and arriving at its own judgment?
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Emperor v. Chellan | That the Legislature, by directing the High Court to weigh the opinions of the Jury, implies authority for eliciting such opinions; and that the Sessions Judge would have done well to record the Jury's opinions. | Relied on for the proposition that the High Court should duly weigh Judge and Jury opinions and that recording jury opinions is desirable though not fatal if absent. |
| Emperor v. Surnamoyee Biswas | Supports the proposition that the High Court must consider the entire evidence and give weight to the opinions of the Sessions Judge and the Jury on a reference under section 307. | Accepted as authority that absence of recorded jury reasons does not bar the High Court from examining the evidence and forming its own judgment. |
| Emperor v. Asgar Mandal | Supports the same proposition concerning the High Court's duty on reference under section 307. | Applied as part of a body of authority confirming the High Court's obligation to review evidence and weigh judge and jury views. |
| Emperor v. Promatha Nath Bakchi | Affirms that the High Court must consider all evidence and give due weight to the Sessions Judge's and Jury's opinions on reference. | Relied upon as part of established authority for the Court's approach to references under section 307. |
| Queen v. Sham Bagdi | Forms part of the authorities establishing the High Court's duty to consider evidence and weigh judge and jury opinions on reference. | Used collectively with other cases to justify the Court proceeding despite lack of jury reasons. |
| Emperor v. Annada Charan Thakur | Part of the line of cases stating that the High Court must weigh the judge's and jury's views when considering a reference under the statute. | Applied to support the Court's conclusion on how to treat the reference in the present case. |
| Emperor v. Mussamat Zohra | Also cited among authorities that the High Court should consider the whole evidence and give weight to the opinions of the Sessions Judge and the Jury. | Relied on as further precedent validating the Court's power and duty to adjudicate despite absence of jury reasons. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded by first acknowledging that the learned Sessions Judge had summed up the case of both parties fairly and fully and that the jury had returned a unanimous not guilty verdict, yet the Sessions Judge disagreed and referred the accused to the High Court under section 307 Cr PC.
The Court reviewed the statutory framework (section 307, clause (3)), and the relevant authorities. It noted a line of precedent holding that on such a reference the High Court is bound to consider the entire evidence and give weight to the opinions of the Sessions Judge and the Jury. The Court accepted the view expressed in prior authorities that, although it would have been preferable for the Sessions Judge to record reasons for the jury's verdict, the absence of such reasons does not prevent the High Court from going into the evidence and forming its own judgment.
The opinion observed that the lack of recorded reasons from the Jury increases the High Court's responsibility and requires closer scrutiny of the evidence. The judgment then proceeded to discuss the evidence in detail (the opinion states this succinctly) and, after weighing the evidence together with due regard to the views of the Sessions Judge and the Jury, reached conclusions of fact and law.
On that basis the Court convicted three of the accused (Bhuilotan, Dipan and Gobind) of murder under section 302 IPC and imposed transportation for life as the sentence.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The High Court convicted Bhuilotan, Dipan and Gobind of murder under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each to transportation for life.
Implications: The direct effect of the decision is the conviction and life transportation sentences of the three named accused. The opinion also confirms and applies the principle (rooted in section 307 and prior authorities) that on a reference under section 307 Cr PC the High Court must consider the entire evidence and give due weight to the opinions of the Sessions Judge and the Jury; furthermore, the absence of recorded reasons from a Jury does not bar the High Court from re-evaluating the evidence and arriving at its own judgment. The opinion does not state that it establishes any new precedent beyond applying and reiterating existing authorities.
1. (After setting out facts the Judgment proceeded) I have tried to present both sides of the case. This appears to be the respective case of the prosecution and the defence also in the Court below.
2. The learned Sessions Judge in his detailed charge to the Jury has summed up the case of both the parties fairly and fully. Upon the presentation of the case of both sides by the learned Sessions Judge and I believe upon the full arguments on both sides by eminent lawyers, the Jury returned an unanimous verdict of not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge, on the other hand, was of opinion that the case against the appellants, the five accused before us, was fully established. He indicated his views in summing up the case in the manner in which he is under the law entitled to do, leaving the Jury to form their own independent opinion. He has repeated the same in his letter of reference to this Court.
3. Thus, whereas on the one band we have got the detailed reasons for the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge for holding that the case against the five accused before us has been proved, we have not gob the reasons which prompted the Jury to return their verdict of not guilty. The verdict of the Jury is in the following terms: “We unanimously find all the accused not guilty” The learned judge thereafter put two questions to the Jury. The answers and questions are given below:—
Q. “Do yon find that it was the dead body of Subans?”
A. “We have got doubts as to that even.”
Q. “You say that the accused are not guilty, do you hold they were not present at the time of crime”?
A. “Yes.”
4. At that very time the learned Judge made up his mind to disagree with the verdict of the Jury as is clear from the following order:—
“The Jury are unanimously of opinion that all the accused are not guilty. I disagree with this verdict in case of the accused Bhuilotan Singh, Gobind Singh, Dipan Singh, Juglal Singh and Bipat Singh and I refer their case to the Hon'ble High Court,” etc.
5. On a reference under section 307 of the Cr PC this Court has to pass its order acquitting or convicting the accused “after considering the entire evidence and after giving due weight to the opinion of the Sessions Judge and Jury. It was pointed out by Mr. Justice Davies in the case of Emperor v. Chellan(1) that the Legislature, in directing that this Court should duly weigh the opinions of the Jury, gives an implied authority for the taking of such opinions And the Sessions Judge would have dona well, before referring the case to the High Court, to have recorded, the opinions of the Jury. We also agree with the judgment of Sir Subrahmania Ayyar, Officiating Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Boddam that the circumstances that no such reasons have been ascertained, does not warrant the High Court to decline to go into the evidence and to arrive at its own judgment after giving due weight to the views taken by the Judge and the Jury as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. This, to my mind, sums up the whole law on the subject and has been accepted in various cases; vide Emperor v. Surnamoyee Biswas(2), Emperor v. Asgar Mandal(3), Emperor v. Promatha Nath Bakchi(4). Queen v. Sham Bagdi(5), Emperor v. Annada Charan Thakur(6) and Emperor v. Mussamat Zohra(7).
6. The above mentioned cases also establish the proposition, which is plain upon the language of section 307, clause (3), itself, that upon such a reference the Court is bound to consider the entire evidence and give weight to the opinions of the cessions Judge and the Jury. Although the learned Sessions Judge in this case would have been well advised if he had asked the Jury to give the reason for their verdict, was do not think that we can refuse to entertain the present reference. The absence of the reasons of the Jury for their verdict only enhances our responsibility in the matter and requires us to go into the evidence more carefully.
7. The judgment then discussed the evidence and concluded. We accordingly convict Bhuilotan, Dipan and Gobind for having murdered Subans under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentence each of them to transportation for life, as it is the only alternative sentence that can be awarded to the accused in this case.
8. Order accordingly.
Alert