MAN SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P.
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,GYAN SUDHA MISRA, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001441-001441 / 2011
Diary number: 15141 / 2011
Advocates: RAVI KUMAR TOMAR Vs
Crl.A. 1441 of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 4810 of 2011 REPORTABLE 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1441 OF 2011 ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL) NO. 4810 OF 2011
MAN SINGH ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties.
4. The appellant was arrested on the 11th August,
1979 at about 9:15a.m. and half a bottle of illicit
liquor along with lahan and other implements for
Crl.A. 1441 of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 4810 of 2011 REPORTABLE 2
manufacturing liquor were seized from him. On the
completion of the investigation, he was brought to
trial for an offence punishable under Section 60(2) of
the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. The trial court relying on
the evidence of the members of the police party and the
Excise Inspector convicted him under the aforesaid
provision and sentenced him to undergo one year's
rigorous imprisonment and to payment of fine as well.
This conviction and sentence has been confirmed by the
first appellate court as well as the Revisional Court
vide judgments dated 22nd October, 1983 and 30th
November, 2010 respectively. The matter is before us
in this background.
5. During the course of arguments, the learned
counsel for the appellant has raised primarily one
submission before us. He has pointed out that though
Crl.A. 1441 of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 4810 of 2011 REPORTABLE 3
a large number of incriminating circumstances had been
introduced by the prosecution during the course of the
evidence but the statement of the appellant recorded
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was
completely perfunctory and did not satisfy the tests
laid down by this Court in a string of cases and in
this view of the matter grave prejudice had been
suffered by the appellant as all incriminating
circumstances had not been put to him. It has been
submitted that this flaw in the trial required that he
should be acquitted of the offence charged.
6. We have considered the argument and find merit
in it. Section 313 postulates that all incriminating
circumstances must be put to an accused so that he is
in a position to explain the circumstances against him.
We reproduce the statement in extenso herein below:
Crl.A. 1441 of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 4810 of 2011 REPORTABLE 4
“Q1 You have heard the statement of accused which are against you
what you have to say? Ans. They are deposing in enmity. Q2 Will you lead the defence evidence? Ans. No. Q3 Is there anything else you
want to say? Ans. I was sitting at the shop of
Brijbhan at Shishgarh Town and I was apprehended by the police persons during the crime week.”
7. Faced with an obvious difficulty, Mr. Ratnakar
Dash, the learned Senior Counsel for the State of U.P.
has submitted that in this view of the matter, the
trial court should be asked to record the statement
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure yet
again so that any lacunae that has crept in can be
filled up. We are not willing to accept this
submission at this belated stage. The incident
occurred way back in the year 1979 and the appellant
Crl.A. 1441 of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 4810 of 2011 REPORTABLE 5
has been facing trial or other legal proceedings for
almost 32 years now and that too for being in
possession of only half a bottle of liquor. We are
also told that he has undergone five months and 15 days
of the sentence that had been imposed on him. We find
that the ends of justice require that this appeal
should be allowed. We, accordingly, set aside the
orders of the courts below. The appellant is ordered
to be acquitted. He is said to be in custody. He
shall be released forthwith if not wanted in connection
with any other case.
........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]
Crl.A. 1441 of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 4810 of 2011 REPORTABLE 6
NEW DELHI JULY 19, 2011.