1996 JTR(SC) 28
1996 1 AICLR 619 ; 1997 AIR(SC) 331 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 88 ; 1996 33 AllCriC 156 ; 1996 33 AllCriC 200 ; 1997 2 AllMR(SC) 691 ; 1996 CriLR 110 ; 1996 1 Crimes(SC) 20 ; 1997 CrLJ 369 ; 1996 1 EastCrC(SC) 397 ; 1996 1 JT 247 ; 1996 1 Scale 252 ; 1996 7 SCC 498 ; 1996 SCC(Cri) 488 ; 1996 1 SCR 158 ; 1997 KHC 1707 ; 1996 1 Supreme 359
1996(1) Supreme 359
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamay and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ
Omkar Namdeo Jadhao & Ors.
-Appellants
versus
Second Additional Sessions Judge Buldana & Anr.. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1996
Decided on 4-1-1996
IMPORTANT POINT
In view of the illegal finding recorded by Sessions Judge of fabrication of record and the case is false one by police, issuance of notice under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is wholly unjustified.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.161, S.340, S.360
EVIDENCE ACT : S.145
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.195, S.194
(A) Sections 194 and 195 of the Indian Penal Code Offences relating to fabricating false evidence Notice for prosecution under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(B) Principles of criminal procedure Evaluation of evidence Assessment of witness credibility must be based on evidence recorded during trial, not on 161 unevaluated statements Physical appearance of witnesses cannot substitute for recorded evidence Judicial observation of fabrication must be based on evidence, not demeanour.
(C) Jurisdiction of Sessions Judge Limits of judicial power Sessions Judge cannot record finding of fabrication without evidence Such observation amounts to overstepping jurisdiction.
Facts of the case:
The appellants were issued a notice for prosecution under Sections 194 and 195, IPC, for allegedly fabricating evidence and framing a false case against two elderly persons. The Sessions Judge relied on 161 statements and observed that the police fabricated the record based on the physical features of the accused, without recording any evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court held that arriving at conclusions on the basis of unevaluated statements and physical features is impermissible. The Sessions Judge exceeded jurisdiction by recording a finding of fabrication without evidence, and the High Court failed to properly consider this jurisdictional overreach.
Issues:
Whether a Sessions Judge can record a finding of fabrication based solely on unevaluated statements and physical features of accused persons. Whether notice for prosecution under Section 340, Cr.P.C. is justified on such findings.
Ratio Decidendi:
A court cannot substitute its observation for evidence recorded during trial. Conclusions drawn from unevaluated statements and physical appearances are legally unsustainable. The Sessions Judge overstepped jurisdiction, and the High Court erred in not correcting this, rendering the notice under Section 340 wholly unjustified.
Result:
The impugned order is quashed and the appeal is allowed.
(A) Sections 194 and 195 of the Indian Penal Code Offences relating to fabricating false evidence Notice for prosecution under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(B) Principles of criminal procedure Evaluation of evidence Assessment of witness credibility must be based on evidence recorded during trial, not on 161 unevaluated statements Physical appearance of witnesses cannot substitute for recorded evidence Judicial observation of fabrication must be based on evidence, not demeanour.
(C) Jurisdiction of Sessions Judge Limits of judicial power Sessions Judge cannot record finding of fabrication without evidence Such observation amounts to overstepping jurisdiction.
Facts of the case:
The appellants were issued a notice for prosecution under Sections 194 and 195, IPC, for allegedly fabricating evidence and framing a false case against two elderly persons. The Sessions Judge relied on 161 statements and observed that the police fabricated the record based on the physical features of the accused, without recording any evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court held that arriving at conclusions on the basis of unevaluated statements and physical features is impermissible. The Sessions Judge exceeded jurisdiction by recording a finding of fabrication without evidence, and the High Court failed to properly consider this jurisdictional overreach.
Issues:
Whether a Sessions Judge can record a finding of fabrication based solely on unevaluated statements and physical features of accused persons. Whether notice for prosecution under Section 340, Cr.P.C. is justified on such findings.
Ratio Decidendi:
A court cannot substitute its observation for evidence recorded during trial. Conclusions drawn from unevaluated statements and physical appearances are legally unsustainable. The Sessions Judge overstepped jurisdiction, and the High Court erred in not correcting this, rendering the notice under Section 340 wholly unjustified.
Result:
The impugned order is quashed and the appeal is allowed.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. In this case we are concerned with the notice issued by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, on December 3, 1990 to the appellants for prosecution under Sections 194 and 195, IPC for alleged fabrication of the record and setting up a case said to be false against two ladies, Jamman and Laxmi said to be aged about 60 and 80 years respectively. The Additional Sessions Judge had stated that they are infirm persons; unable to walk and stand without the support of others, Consequently, it would be difficult to believe the version of the police that they pelted stones and kicked the police officers while the latter were discharging the official duty in apprehending Latur Hasan. While setting aside the charges framed against them, notice was issued under Section 340, Cr.P.C. for prosecution of the appellants under Sections 194 and 195, IPC.
3. It is seen that the observation made by the Sessions Judge, as confimed by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in the impugned judgment dated 10.3.1992 made in Criminal Application No. 20/91 is based on 161 statements recorded during the investigation. Admittedly, no evidence has been recorded. The court should not come to the conclusion on the basis of 161 statements which are not evidence. It can be used at the trial only for contradictions or omissions when the witness was examined. Nor it could be contradicted by looking at the physical features of the witnesses even before they are examined. The Additional Sessions Judge had discharged them concluding that the police officers had fabricated the record. It would appear that the learned Sessions Judge had overstepped his jurisdiction in recording a finding, while looking at the physical features of the accused, that the police had fabricated the record. The High Court has also not properly considered the matter while going into the question regarding discharge of the accused for other offences. Under these circumstances, we hold that in view of the finding recorded by the Sessions Judge of fabrication of the record and that the case is false one, issuance of notice under Section 340, Cr.P.C. is wholly unjustified. The said order of the Sessions Judge is accordingly quashed.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Appeal allowed.
*******