An Analytical Report of Cases and

Their Sentencing Policy and

Principles Involved
(1950 TO 1960)
(Level : I)

SUBMITTED BY :

DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NINTH SEMESTER

.FIFTH YEAR.

Page 1 of 62
Sr. Name of the case and its Issues Remarks (SC)
No. citation

01. Mohinder Singh v. The Appellant, Mohinder Singh, Sentence and Conviction set
State. was convicted and sentenced aside.
to death under section 302,
[AIR 1953 SC 415] 307 and 34 of the I.P.C by the Supreme court was of the opinion
Sessions Court. High court of that no proper and fair trial has
(Decided on : 17-10-50) Punjab confirmed his been conducted and hence
conviction and death conviction was set aside. Also, no
sentence and thus, this fresh trial was ordered, as the
appeal by special leave was court felt it would be unfair in eyes
preferred by the appellant. of law since the accused remained
in a dilemma over his death
sentence for period of one year.
02. Arjun Lal Misra v. The State. Appellant, Arjun Lal Misra The appellant, Arjun Lal Misra,
was convicted for the offences was acquitted by the Supreme
[AIR 1953 SC 411] punishable under Sections Court due to omission in the
457/380/461 of the Indian examination of the accused under
(Decided on : 30-11-50) Penal Code that is house section 342 of the Criminal
breaking by night to commit Procedure code at the trial stage.
theft, the substantive offence Conviction and sentence of the
of theft, and dishonestly appellant set aside and acquitted
breaking open a closed with respect to other charges. It
receptacle. was observed that accepting the
version of the High Court about the
This is an appeal by leave occurrence, as we must, we have
granted by the High Court of before us a case where the
Orissa under Article 134(1) conclusion of guilt rests solely on a
(c) of the Constitution of retracted confession, not only
India. The order granting uncorroborated in material
leave is a lengthy one and particulars, but untrue in many
proceeds on the basis that the parts. Such a conviction is opposed
conviction of the appellant

Page 2 of 62
 amounted to a miscarriage of to law and cannot be allowed to
justice on the facts and that stand.
there was failure to comply
with the requirements of
Section 342 of Criminal P.
Code.

03. Tulsiram Kanu v. The State. Appellant, Tulsiram Kanu, Conviction and sentence set aside
was charged for offence of by the Supreme court and it was
[AIR 1954 SC 1]. murder under Section 302 stated that the judgment of the
and for offence of High Court is principally based on
(Decided on : 29-01-1951) misappropriating property the identity of the recovered
under Section 404 of Indian ornaments. The rest of the
penal code. judgment of the High Court is
defective in not taking into
This is an appeal by Tulsiram consideration the different detailed
Kanu from the judgment and reasons given by the Sessions
order of the High Court at Judge for rejecting the rest of the
Nagpur, reversing the evidence alleged to prove the guilt
judgment and order of the of the appellant. In our opinion the
Additional Sessions Judge, High Court was in error in
Bhandara, and convicting the convicting the appellant of murder
appellant for the offence of and we have, therefore, reversed
murder and passing a the decision of the High Court. The
sentence of death on him reasoning of the High Court that
under Section 302, Indian the accused had not made any
Penal Code. attempt to show that the
ornaments belonged to him is
clearly fallacious. The failure or
omission of the appellant to prove
that fact does not in any way help
the prosecution in proving the guilt
of the appellant.
Page 3 of 62
 As the ornaments are not proved to
be the ornaments of the deceased,
no conviction under Section 404, I.
P. C., can be sustained.

Matter relates to the offence of theft

and murder in which the evidences
recovered did not depict clear
connection with the offences
alleged for, hence the conviction
and the sentence was set aside by
the Supreme court.
04. Santosh Kumar Jain v. The Appellant, Santosh Kumar Appeal dismissed. Bail bond
State Union of India Jain, was convicted and cancelled and appellant ordered to
(Intervener). sentenced to three weeks surrender. The sentence and
simple imprisonment under conviction order of the High court
[AIR 1951 SC 201] section 186 of the I.P.C. was stated to be in full accord with
the facts and circumstances of the
(Decided on :05-03-1951) This is an appeal from a matter and hence was upheld.
judgment of the High Court of
Judicature at Patna
dismissing a revision petition
against the conviction of the
appellant for an offence under
s. 186 of the Indian Penal
Code.
05. Geoffrey Manners and First appellant, company is a Conviction and sentence was set
Company Ltd. V. The State private limited company, aside by the Supreme Court.
of Bombay. having its registered office in
[1959 (61) BOMLR 603] Bombay. Appellants Nos. 2 Sentence passed under section
and 3 are the directors of the 486 of the Indian Penal Code was
(Decided on : 11-05-1951) company who were convicted not justified on facts and hence,
under section 6 of the Indian was set aside by the Supreme court

Page 4 of 62
 Merchandise Act and Section relying upon the facts and
486 of the Indian Penal Code. circumstances of the case.
This is an appeal from a The Supreme Court stated that, to
judgment and order of the hold any of the accused guilty of
High Court at Bombay affixing a counterfeit mark or to
convicting the appellants have affixed a false mark on a
under Section 6 of the Indian receptacle containing goods of a
Merchandise Marks Act "quality or nature different from
(hereafter referred to as the the real nature", there must be
Act) and Section 486 of the proof of the existence of some
Indian Penal Code, in respect genuine mark or goods of the true
of a toilet preparation nature, because without such
described as "Anne French, proof the requirements of the
cleansing milk" with a label sections are not complied with. The
affixed thereon. evidence on record does not show
the existence of any such genuine
Appellants were alleged for mark or different true article. We,
false trade description of their therefore, think that the High
product by concealment or Court erred in convicting the
omission of not mentioning its accused under the different
content and place of sections of the Penal Code or
manufacture in order to Section 7 of the Act
misguide people that the good
is manufactured in England.
06. Waliyat Khan & Others v. Three appellants and another Appellant acquitted and order of
The State of U.P. Abdul Hai Khan were tried by the Sessions Judge restored.
[Air 1953 SC 122] the Sessions Judge of Sentence and conviction of the
Ghazipur for the murder of High Court set aside on the reason
(Decided on : 25-05-1951) one Sikandar Khan, and they that the grounds given by the High
were acquitted. Court to set aside the acquittal
order of the Sessions Judge was
The State preferred an appeal not as such to show that the
against the acquittal to the

Page 5 of 62
 High court. The acquittal was conclusion arrived at by the
set aside and they were Sessions judge was not proper.
convicted under
Sections 147 and 302/149, of
the Indian Penal Code,
and sentenced to two years'
rigorous imprisonment and
transportation for life
respectively, the sentences
being made to run
concurrently and hence they
preferred the present appeal
by special leave.
07. Muthuswami v. State of Appellant Muthuswami had Appellant was acquitted and his
Madras. been convicted of the murder conviction was set aside.
of Nachimuthu Goundan and
[AIR 1954 SC 4] sentenced to death. This The Supreme court held that, “the
appeal being preferred by the only reason the High Court give for
(Decided on : 22-10-1951) appellant upon confirmation accepting the confession is
of the sentence and conviction because the learned Judges
by the High Court. considered there was intrinsic
material to indicate its
Appeal filed raised a question genuineness. But the only feature
"Whether a conviction can be the learned Judges specify is that
based on a retracted and it contains a wealth of detail which
uncorroborated confession?" could not have been invented. But
the point overlooked is that none of
this detail has been tested. The
confession is a long and rambling
one which could have been
invented by an agile mind or pieced
together after tutoring. What would
have been difficult is to have set

Page 6 of 62
 out a true set of facts in that
manner. But unless the main
features of the story are shown to
be true, it is, in our opinion, unsafe
to regard mere wealth of
uncorroborated detail as a
safeguard of truth”.
10. Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. Two brothers Hate Singh and Supreme Court sets aside the
The State of Madhya Bheru Singh were convicted of conviction and sentence of the
Bharat. the murder of one Shiv Singh appellant Hate Singh.
and sentenced to death. The
[AIR 1953 SC 468 ] Madhya Bharat High Court Benefit of doubt resulted in setting
confirmed the convictions and aside of the conviction and
(Decided on :22-11-1951) upheld the sentences. Both sentence of the appellant as the
appealed to this Court. Bheru prosecution evidence failed to
Singh's appeal was dismissed establish guilt beyond all possible
'in limine' because he doubts.
admitted the shooting from
the start and took all the
blame on himself. Present
case is the appeal by Hate
Singh.
11*. Adamji Umar Dalal v. The The appellant Adamji Umar Sentence was reduced by the
State of Bombay. Dalal was tried along with five Supreme Court to be imposed in
other persons on the following case of default only and Rs.1000
[AIR 1952 SC 14] charges punishable under fine was ordered to be paid instead
sections 7 and 8 of the of Rs. 15000. Supreme court was
(Decided on : 26-11-1951) Essential Supplies of the opinion that fine was
(Temporary Powers) Act and sufficient to meet the ends of
for offences punishable under justice in this case.
section 106 and 107 of the
Indian Railway Act, read with The principle laid down is as
follows : - “The determination of the

Page 7 of 62
 section 114 of the Indian right measure of punishment is
Penal Code. often a point of great difficulty and
no hard and fast rule can be laid
Sentence of six months down, it being a matter of
imprisonment with 15000 discretion which is to be guided by
fine was imposed upon the a variety of considerations, but the
appellant. courts has always to bear in mind
Two appeals by special leave the necessity of proportion
are limited to the question of between an offence and the
sentence only. penalty. In imposing a fine it is
necessary to have as much regard
to the pecuniary circumstances of
the accused persons to the
character and magnitude of the
offence, and where a substantial
term of imprisonment is inflicted,
an excessive fine should not
accompany it except in exceptional
cases. It seems to us that due
regard has not been paid to these
consideration in these cases and
the zeal to crush the evil of black
marketing and free the common
man from this plague has
perturbed the judicial mind in the
determination of the measure of
punishment”.
12. Bhagat Singh v. The State Appellant being accused for Appeal dismissed as the
Gurdev Singh (Caveator). the offence of murder was contentions raised were found to
sentenced to death. Hence, an be devoid of merit and the court
[AIR 1952 SC 45] appeal against the judgment made an observation that an act
(Decided on : 19-12-1951) of the High Court at Patiala will constitute a single offence
upholding the conviction and despite of the fact that it causes

Page 8 of 62
 sentence of the appellant, harm to more than one. Ex :- one
who was tried by the Sessions bullet fired at both A and B will be
Judge of Sangrur for the a single offence.
offence of murder and
sentenced to death.

13. Kashmira Singh v. The The appellant Kashmira Benefit of doubt facilitated the
State of Madhya Pradesh. Singh has been convicted of acquittal of the appellant from
[AIR 1952 SC 159] the murder of one Ramesh, a conviction and sentence for
small boy aged five, and has offences of murder, conspiracy and
(Decided on : 04-03-1952) been sentenced to death. He kidnapping but was convicted
was granted special leave to under section 201 of the Indian
appeal Penal Code.
14. Pangambam Kalonjoy Singh Appellant, P.K.Singh was Appellant acquitted. Weighing the
v. State of Manipur. convicted for the offence of evidence the bench was of the
[AIR 1956 SC 9] murder. This is an appeal opinion that large amount of doubt
from a conviction for murder and suspicion exists and in such
(Decided on : ) and a sentence of death. The circumstances it would be unsafe
appellant was tried by the to convict the appellant and hence
Judicial Commissioner of the conviction and sentence were
Manipur, a Part C State to set aside.
which the Criminal Procedure
Code does not apply but to
which the Indian Evidence Act
does. Though the Code of
Criminal Procedure does not
apply to Manipur, the trial
has been substantially in
accordance with the
procedure laid down by that
Code.

Page 9 of 62
15. Hanumant v. The State of First appellant held the post Supreme court acquitted the
Madhya Pradesh. of Excise commissioner and appellants and stated that
the second appellant as evidences produced were
& Chemical Engineer, they were insufficient to prove the guilt of the
convicted and sentenced for accused beyond all reasonable
Raoji Bhai v. The State of the offences of criminal doubt and hence provided scope
Madhya Pradesh. conspiracy, forgery and for the acquittal of the appellant.
[AIR 1952 SC 343] abetment.

(Decided on : 23-09-1952)
16. Palvinder Kaur v. The State Palvinder Kaur, was tried for Supreme court ordered acquittal of
of Punjab. offences alleged under the appellant upon existence of
[AIR 1952 SC 354] section 302 and 201, of the element of doubt and suspicion
Indian Penal Code, in over the evidences. It held that life
(Decided on : 22-10-1952) connection with the murder of and liberty of persons cannot be
her husband, Jaspal Singh. put in jeopardy on mere
She was convicted by the suspicions, howsoever strong, and
Sessions Judge under they can only be deprived of these
section 302 and sentenced to on the basis of definite proof.
transportation for life. No.
verdict was recorded
regarding the charge under
section 201, Indian Penal
Code.

On appeal to the High Court

she was acquitted of the
charge of murder, but was
convicted under section 201,
Indian Penal Code, and
sentenced to seven years'
rigorous imprisonment.

Page 10 of 62
 Hence, her appeal by special
leave to the Supreme Court.

18. Puran v. The State of Appellant, Puran was tried for Appellant was acquitted.
Punjab. the murder of two boys, by Insufficient materials on record to
administering poison to them. prove the guilt of the appellant and
[AIR 1953 SC 459] He was acquitted by the to falsify the presumption of him
Sessions Judge of Hissar but being innocent compelled the court
(Decided on : 13-11-1952) on appeal by the State to order the acquittal of appellant.
Government was convicted by
the High Court of Punjab and The Supreme Court stated that,
sentenced to death. Hence “We have not been able to see that
this appeal by him under any compelling or substantial
Article 134(1)(a) of the reasons existed for reversing the
Constitution. acquittal order in this case and
none has been pointed out by the
High Court in its decision. No
attempt has been made in the
judgment to discuss the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses or to
explain satisfactorily the
discrepancies that were of a
material nature and which had
been pointed out in those
statements by the Sessions Judge
in his careful and detailed
judgment. We are satisfied that
this was not a case for interference
with the acquittal order in an
appeal under Section 417, Cr.P.C”.

Page 11 of 62
19. The State of Madhya State preferred this appeal by Appeal dismissed and it was held
Pradesh v. Ramkrishna special leave directed against that interference with an acquittal
Ganpatrao Limsey and Ors. an acquittal order of the High order would be justified where
Court of Nagpur in Criminal High Court acts perversely or
[AIR 1954 SC 20] Appeals Nos. 121, 122 and improperly or has been deceived by
123 of 1950, preferred to that fraud. In present case there is no
(Decided on : 19-11-1952) Court by the three perversity in the conclusion arrived
respondents.. All the three by High Court on acquittal of
respondents were tried for the accused persons. Hence,
murder of one Dattu Patel and interference not justifiable and the
were charged with the appeal is dismissed.
offences of 302/34 of the
Indian Penal code.
20. Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Appellant charged for offence Appeal allowed and the appellant
Madhya Pradesh. under Section 161 for was acquitted on an observation
[AIR 1954 SC 15] accepting illegal gratification. that there is absence of satisfactory
Appellant acquitted by evidence to prove case against
(Decided on : 03-12-1952) Session Judge and upon appellant beyond reasonable
appeal by state, High Court doubt. Held, Additional Session
set aside order of acquittal Judge justified in extending
and convicted appellant for appellant benefit of doubt to
offence under Section 161 appellant.
and sentenced him to nine
months of imprisonment.
Hence, this appeal has been
preferred by the appellant.
21. Sanwat Khan & Another v. The appellants, Sanwat Khan Appellant’s conviction under
State of Rajasthan. and Kaloo Khan, were Section 302 was set aside and they
convicted by the Sessions were convicted under section 380
[AIR 1956 SC 54] Judge of Nagaur for an of the Indian Penal code, and in the
offence under Section 302, light of the term of imprisonment
(Decided on :- 09-12-1952) I.P.C. for the murder of one already undergone they were
Mahant Ganeshdas and his ordered to be released. Supreme

Page 12 of 62
 servant Ganpatia and were court stated that as per the
sentenced to death. They evidences and findings of the lower
appealed to the High Court of court it was not proper to maintain
Judicature for Rajasthan at the conviction of the appellants
Jodhpur and their case also under section 302 of I.P.C in the
came up for confirmation of eyes of law. However, in concern to
the sentence under Section the alleged offence of theft no
374, Cr. P. C., before that element of doubt existed and for
Court. The High Court the same they were liable to be
confirmed the conviction but punished.
commuted the sentence of
death into one of
imprisonment for life. To this
extent the appeal of both the
accused persons was allowed.
This was an appeal by special
leave against the above
decision of the High Court.

22. Ajmer Singh v. The State of Appellant, Ajmer Singh, was Appeal dismissed and the order of
Punjab. tried for the offence of murder the High Court was reaffirmed. The
and was acquitted by the findings of the sessions court that
[AIR 1953 SC 76] Sessions Judge of Ferozepore. the appellant was not present at
On appeal by the State spot was rejected and it was
(Decided on :- 10-12-1952) Government, the order of observed that the only conclusion
acquittal was set aside by the which comes of available evidence
High Court and the appellant is that appellant inflicted injury to
was convicted under the deceased and thus should be
section 304, Indian Penal held guilty.
Code, and sentenced to ten
years' rigorous imprisonment.
This was an appeal by special
leave against that decision.

Page 13 of 62
23. Thakur Prasad v. The State Appellant Thakur Prasad Supreme Court dismissed the
of Madhya Pradesh. along with seven other appeal and held that, the courts
persons was sent up for trial below had come to a definite
[AIR 1954 SC 30] on a charge under finding on the evidence that the
Section 302/149, Penal Appellant was a member of the
(Decided on :- 27-01-1953) Code,. The Second Additional unlawful assembly and took some
Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, part in inflicting injuries on ‘N’ in
who tried the case acquitted prosecution of their common
two of the accused, and found object. Hence, this court cannot go
the remaining six accused behind the concurrent finding.
including the appellant to be
guilty of offence under
Section 302/149, Penal Code.
The appellant Thakur Prasad
was sentenced to death
subject to confirmation by the
High Court and the remaining
five to transportation for life.
There was an appeal to the
High Court of Madhya
Pradesh but the appeal was
dismissed except to the extent
that the death sentence of the
appellant Thakur Prasad was
reduced to one of
transportation for life. All the
six accused persons applied
to Supreme Court for special
leave to appeal under
Article 136 of the Constitution
of India but leave was granted
only to the appellant Thakur
Prasad and the application, so

Page 14 of 62
 far as it related to the other
five accused persons, was
dismissed.

24. Mahadev Dhanappa Gunaki Appeal by the two appellants Appeal dismissed and the Supreme
and Another v. The State of against conviction for offence Court observed that there were no
Bombay. under Sections 116, 161/34 circumstances so as to interfere
for offering illegal gratification with the findings of the High Court.
[AIR 1953 SC 179] to Police Inspector of Anti- On the plea of reducing the
Corruption Branch for sentence, the Supreme Court
(Decided on :- 04-02-1953) dropping inquiry against stated that after giving the matter
them and for return of our best consideration we do not
account books attached by find any extenuating circumstance
Anti-Corruption Police. which should weigh with us in
interfering with the sentence.
25. Vijendrajit Ayodhya Prasad Appeal by appellant V.A.P. Appeal dismissed by the Supreme
Goel v. State of Bombay. Goel against conviction for Court by which the court rejected
[AIR 1953 SC 247] offence under Sections 66 the contention that the spirit falls
(b)/81 for possessing rectified within the category of spirits used
(Decided on :- 13-03-1953) spirit without permit for for medicinal purposes. It stated
which he was sentenced to that no evidence had been led to
three month rigorous show that rectified spirit falls in
imprisonment and fine of category of medicinal preparations.
Rs.1000. The High Court Evidence of chemical analyst
confirmed the conviction and revealed that rectified spirit found
hence, this appeal was in possession of appellant was
preferred by special leave. ethyl alcohol and thus fell within
definition of intoxicant. Rectified
spirit clearly falls within the
definition of an intoxicant and its
possession without permit is
prohibited by the provisions of
Page 15 of 62
 Section 66 (b) of the Act. Thus, no
reason to interfere with the
conviction and sentence.

26. Mushtak Hussein v. State of Appellant was convicted on a Supreme court acquitted the
Bombay. charge under section 366, appellant of all charges on the
[AIR 1953 SC 282] Indian Penal Code, for having ground that it seems plain to us
(Decided on :- 30-03-1953) kidnapped at Poona a minor that on the material on this record
girl in order that she may be no reasonable body of persons
forced or seduced to illicit could possibly have arrived at the
intercourse and was conclusion that the appellant
sentenced to undergo kidnapped Shilavati as alleged by
rigorous imprisonment for the prosecution. And thus it
two years after a trial before observed that deciding the case not
the third additional Sessions on materials, facts, circumstances
Judge of that place sitting and findings led to grave
with a jury of five. The jury miscarriage of justice.
returned a verdict of guilty by
a majority of three to two. The
Sessions Judge came to the
conclusion that the verdict
was not perverse. He therefore
accepted it. The appellant
preferred an appeal to the
High Court but this was
summarily dismissed. This
appeal was by special leave

Page 16 of 62
27. Dalip Singh & Others v. Four persons appealed Appeal dismissed and sentence
State of Punjab. against sentences of death reduced to transportation to life.
passed upon them in The Supreme Court stated that --
[AIR 1953 SC 364]… convictions for a double “On the question of sentence, it
murder, the victims being two would have been necessary for us
(Decided on :- 15-05-1993) brothers. The learned Session to interfere in any event because a
Judge convicted three others question of principle is involved.
also but sentenced all, In a case of murder, the death
including the four appellants, sentence should ordinarily be
to transportation for life. The imposed unless the trying Judge
High Court acquitted three of for reasons which should normally
the seven but sustained the be recorded considers it proper to
convictions of the four award the lesser penalty. But the
appellants and enhanced discretion is his and if he gives
their sentences in each case reasons on which a judicial mind
to death. could properly found, an appellate
court should not interfere. The
power to enhance a sentence from
transportation to death should
very rarely be exercised and only
for the strongest possible reasons.
It is not enough for an appellate
court to say, or think, that if left to
itself it would have awarded the
greater penalty because the
discretion does not belong to the
appellate court but to the trial
Judge and the only ground on
which an appellate court can
interfere is that the discretion has
been improperly exercised, as for
example where no reasons are
given and none can be inferred

Page 17 of 62
 from the circumstances of the
case, or where the facts are so
gross that no normal judicial mind
would have award the lesser
penalty. We are unable to hold that
the discretion was improperly
exercised by the learned Sessions
Judge and thus to the extent of
sentencing accept the appeal by
reducing it to the earlier.”
28. Nisa Stree v. The State of Appellant was convicted by Appeal dismissed and the Supreme
Orissa. the Additional Sessions Judge court stated it as an undoubted
of Cuttack under Section cold blooded murder out of pure
[AIR 1954 SC 279] 302 of the Indian Penal Code greed and being cogent and
for having murdered one girl convincing, came to the conclusion
(Decided on :- 24-09-1953) of 7 years of age, and also that the circumstances established
under Section 379 of the against the appellant were not
Indian Penal Code for having consistent with any rational
dishonestly removed a pair of hypothesis of innocence. All the
gold Naulis from the person of four assessors agreed with this
the deceased girl. The view of the matter and were
Additional Sessions Judge unanimously of opinion that the
made a reference to the High appellant was guilty of both the
Court under Section 374 of offences with which she had been
the Criminal Procedure Code charged. The High Court also
for the confirmation of the agreed with this view of the matter
sentence of death passed by and upheld the conviction and
him for the offence under sentence passed on the appellant.
Section 302, Indian Penal
Code. The appellant also
appealed before the High
Court against her conviction
and sentence. The High Court

Page 18 of 62
 upheld the conviction and
sentence and accepted the
reference and rejected the
appeal. The High Court,
however, gave leave to the
appellant under Article 134(1)
(c) of the Constitution of India
to appeal to this Court.
29. Nawab Singh v. The State of Appellant was convicted The Supreme Court dismissed the
Uttar Pradesh. under sections 302 and 364 of appeal and stated that there was
the Indian Penal Code and the no extenuating circumstances
[AIR 1954 SC 278] sentences of death and whatsoever which would justify
transportation for life was ordering a commutation of the
(Decided on :- 28-09-1953) ordered by the Sessions death sentence. Howsoever, facts
Judge and the same being revealed that murder was a cruel
affirmed by the High Court. and a deliberate one.

In appeal question for

consideration which arose
was :-Whether inordinate
delay in executing death
sentence may be regarded as
ground for commuting it ?
30. Habeeb Mohammad v. The Appellant convicted by the Conviction and sentence was set
State of Hyderabad. Special Judge, Warangal, aside by the supreme court on
appointed under Regulation X witnessing various irregularities at
[AIR 1954 SC 51] of 1939-F., under sections the trial stage. Material witnesses
243, 248, 368, 282 and 174 of were not examined by prosecution
(Decided on :- 05-10-1953) the Hyderabad Penal Code Character of man being important
(corresponding to in explaining his conduct and
sections 302,307, 436, 342 judging his innocence not being
and 148, Indian Penal Code ) dealt. There was unreasonable
and the respective sentences delay of six months in investigation

Page 19 of 62
 passed under these section of case due to which a good deal of
against him. Appellant material evidence was lost. These
preferred this appeal by irregularities observed by the apex
special leave since High court court led to the acquittal of the
had upheld the conviction. appellant.

31. Sadhu Singh Harnam Singh Appellant Sadhu Singh, The Supreme Court stated that –
v. The State of Pepsu. preferred appeal from a “We allow this appeal, set aside the
decision of a Division Bench decision of the courts below and
[AIR 1954 SC 271] of the High Court of Patiala by hold the appellant guilty of the
which the sentence of offence under Section 304A, I. P. C.
(Decided on :- 08-10-1953) transportation for life was In our opinion, the sentence
passed against him for the already undergone by him is
murder of one Harbachan sufficient to meet the ends of
Singh was affirmed. justice and we therefore direct that
he be released forthwith. Even if
the offence were to be regarded as
falling under Section 304, I. P. C.,
we would not have awarded him a
severer punishment than the
imprisonment that he has already
undergone”.
32. Surendra Singh & Others v. Three appellants were The appeal was allowed and the
The State of Uttar Pradesh. prosecuted for the murder of order of the High Court which
one Babu Singh. Of these, purports to be its judgment was set
[AIR 1954 SC 194] Surendra Singh alone was aside. As it was no longer possible
convicted of the murder and for the Bench which heard the
(Decided on :-16-11-1953) was sentenced to death. The appeal and the confirmation
other two were convicted proceedings to deliver a valid
under section 225, Indian judgment the Supreme Court send
Penal Code. Each was the case back to the High Court for
sentenced to three years' re-hearing and delivery of a proper
rigorous imprisonment and to judgment.
a fine of Rs. 200. The validity
Page 20 of 62
 of the judgment pronounced
by the High Court was in
question as it was delivered
only after the death of one of
the judge. Hence, this appeal.

33. Prem Nath v. State of U.P Appellant was convicted Appeal was allowed and the
under section 302 of the penal conviction and the sentence of the
[ AIR 1956 SC 4] code and was sentenced to appellant was set aside with an
death. The High Court of order for re-trial of the case. It was
(Decided on :-17-12-1953) Punjab confirmed his held that not taking opinion of
conviction and thus granted assessors in respect of charges
certificate to appeal under relating to attempt to murder and
Article 134(1)(c) of the possession of unlicensed fire arm
Constitution. Hence, this had prejudiced the appellant.
appeal was preferred by the
appellant against the
judgment of the Supreme
Court.
34. Mahadeo Prasad v. The Appellant was charged for the Appellant’s appeal dismissed and
State of West Bengal. offence under section 420 of the court observed that the
the Indian Penal code and was conviction under section 420 of the
[AIR 1954 SC 724] convicted and sentenced to penal code is justified as the case
one year rigorous is devoid of any merit and the
(Decided on :- 13-01-1954) imprisonment. High court conduct of the appellant showed
confirmed his conviction and that he had no intention to pay but
hence the present appeal was merely promised to pay cash
being preferred. against delivery in order to induce
complainant to part with his goods.

Page 21 of 62
35. Narayan Tewary v. State of Appellant was charged for Appeal dismissed by the Supreme
West Bengal. criminal breach of trust and Court and it was stated that there
was charged for the offence was no scope of interference with
[AIR 1954 SC 726] under section 406 of the the decision of the High Court
Indian Penal Code. High court confirming the conviction as the
(Decided on :- 13-01-1954) upheld his conviction. Hence, prosecution at the trial stage has
the appellant preferred the succeeded in establishing the case
present appeal. against the appellant beyond all
reasonable doubt.
36. Mangleshwari Prasad v. The Appellant was charged for Appeal was dismissed by the apex
State of Bihar. embezzlement of collections of court and it stated that the
taxes due to municipality and prosecution has established
[AIR 1954 SC 715] for forgery of challans and beyond all reasonable doubt that
was convicted for the offences either the appellant alone or with
(Decided on :- 22-01-1954) under section 406 and 109 of aid of somebody committed the
the penal code and was forgery. The court rejected the
awarded seven years rigorous contention of the appellant in
imprisonment by the Sessions which it stated that the appellant’s
Judge. On appeal the High peon was solely involved and
Court affirmed the conviction committed the alleged offence, on
and the sentence and hence the ground that the peon never
against such affirmation the knew English language and was
present appeal was preferred. not capable to mark challans in
English.

However, the court reduced the

sentence from seven years to that
of three years imprisonment and
stated that such quantum would
be apt to meet the ends of justice
as per the gravity of offence
committed and it would be not
justified to sentence him to the

Page 22 of 62
 maximum limit as prescribed the
statute.

37. Bhagat Ram v. State of Appellant was convicted by Appeal was allowed and the
Punjab. the Magistrate, at two conviction and the sentence of the
separate trials, one in respect appellant was set aside. It was held
[AIR 1954 SC 621] of a charge under that offences against the appellant
section 420 and the other in could not be proved beyond
(Decided on :- 09-02-1954) respect of a charge under reasonable doubt and none of
section 409 of the Indian circumstances can be legitimately
Penal Code. The convictions treated as circumstances which
were confirmed by the disprove the defense put forward
Sessions Judge on appeal and by the appellant.
by the High Court in revision.
The charges relates to
connected matters and the
evidence, though separately
recorded, was substantially
the same. So these are two
appeal by special leave of the
same appellant against the
common judgment of High
Court.
38. Ram Das v. State of West Appellant was convicted by Appellant conviction altered from
Bengal. the First Class Magistrate, offence under Section 354 to 352
Hoogly for an offence under and sentenced him to three
[AIR 1954 SC 711] Section 354, I.P.C. and months of imprisonment. Held, act
sentenced to two years' of appellant cannot be held that he
(Decided on :-24-02-1954) rigorous imprisonment. On did so with the intent to outrage
appeal the Sessions Judge, her modesty or with the knowledge
Hoogly, confirmed both the that it would be outraged. Also,
Page 23 of 62
 conviction and the sentence, facts reveals that act of appellant
and a revision petition was to secure the berth of train and
preferred to the High Court not to outrage the modesty of
was rejected. This matter now women.
comes before Supreme court
on special leave under
Article 136.
39. Ram Bharosey v. State of Appellant was convicted The appeal was dismissed and the
Uttar Pradesh. under section 302 of the I.P.C conviction and sentence were
and was sentenced to death. upheld by the Supreme Court and
[AIR 1954 SC 704] It was also upheld by the High it stated that there were no such
Court and thus the appellant evidences present so as to vitiate
(Decided on :- 25-02-1954) preferred appeal by special the findings posing doubt over the
leave against the decision of appellant’s conviction. The case
High Court. has been established beyond all
reasonable doubt.
40. Kripal and Others v. State of Three appellant charged for Conviction of appellant No. 1 and 2
Uttar Pradesh. offence under Sections 148, for offence under Section 302 was
302 and 323/149. Session set aside while conviction of
[AIR 1954 SC 706] Judge convicted appellants appellant No. 3 for offence under
for offence under Section 304 section 302 of the penal code was
(Decided on :- 25-02-1954) (1) and Section 323/34 but upheld because appellant no. 3
acquitted appellants for caused the injury resulting into
offence under Section 302. On death and there was no common
appeal the High Court upheld intention to cause death of the
convictions of appellants and victim with respect to other
also set aside the acquittal of appellants. However, there was
appellant for the offence intention of beating the victim and
under Section 302. Hence, to injure him but the nature of the
present appeal was preferred stabbing by the appellant shows
against the decision of the that he in due course made his
High court. mind to end life of the victim and

Page 24 of 62
 thus his death sentence is totally
justified in the eyes of law.

41. Purshottam Jethanand v. Appellant was convicted of an Appeal dismissed and it was held
State of Kutch. offence under Section 384, I. that all the contentions raised by
P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for the learned counsel for the
[AIR 1954 SC 700] 12 months and a fine of Rs. appellant fail and we see no reason
100/-. This was confirmed by to interfere either with the
(Decided on :- 05-03-1954) the Sessions Judge on appeal conviction or with the sentence.
and upheld on revision by the Also, trial was not vitiated if the
Judicial Commissioner, statements of prosecution
Kutch. witnesses recorded by police
during investigation were not
furnished under Section 162.
42. Gajanand & Others v. State Appellants were convicted for Appellants were acquitted against
of Uttar Pradesh. the offence under Section 147 all charges. In the judgment it was
and Section 324/149 and stated that appellant cannot be
[AIR 1954 SC 695] 323/149, 302/149 of the said to have constituted an
Indian Penal code. Against the unlawful assembly as they were
(Decided on :- 18-03-1954) decision of the Allahabad engaged in peaceful pursuit of
High Court this appeal by worship and had received more
special leave was preferred. numerous injuries and there are
no material to justify that
appellants became members of
unlawful assembly at any time
thereafter.

Page 25 of 62
43. A.J. Peiris v. State of Appellant was convicted for Appeal dismissed and in the
Madras offence under 120-B and opinion of the Supreme Court the
Section 302/109 and was conviction and the sentence are
[AIR 1954 SC 616] awarded death sentence for fully justified. The apex court was
committing murder of X in of the opinion that a faint attempt
(Decided on :- 18-03-1954) conspiracy with another, was made on behalf of the
against the affirmation by the appellant to challenge the
High Court he preferred this conviction on the merits by
appeal. contending that the confession was
not true or voluntary and that
there was no sufficient
corroboration by other evidence in
the case. This contention involves
an investigation into pure
questions of fact which we decline
to entertain, as we do not think
that a finding of fact depending
upon the merits or appreciation of
the evidence is open to
reconsideration in an appeal
brought by special leave.
44. Bihari Singh Madho Singh v. Appellant charged for murder Acquittal of the appellant ordered
State of Bihar. of his brother and convicted by the apex court with an
under section 302 of the observation that the conviction of
[AIR 1954 SC 692] Indian Penal code and the appellant cannot be based
sentenced to death. High upon doubtful evidences and the
(Decided on :- 18-03-1954) Court upheld the judgment of prosecution failed to establish the
the trial court and hence this case against the appellant beyond
appeal to the apex court was reasonable doubt.
preferred.

Page 26 of 62
45. Biswabhusan Naik v. The Appellant was charged under Appeal dismissed and it was
State of Orissa. section 5(2) of the Prevention asserted by the apex court that the
of Corruption Act (II of 1947) High court was right in upholding
[AIR 1954 SC 359] for criminal misconduct in the conviction and the appellant in this
shape of habitually accepting appeal had failed to establish his
(Decided on :- 07-04-1954) illegal gratification. He was innocence and also the facts
also separately charged and enumerated show pecuniary
separately prosecuted under resources held by Inspector were
section 161 of the Indian far beyond his financial capacity.
Penal Code for three specific
offences of bribe taking but
we are not concerned here
with that as he was acquitted
on all three counts. His
conviction here is under
section 5(2) alone. The trial
Court sentenced him to
rigorous imprisonment for
four years and a fine of Rs.
5,000. The High Court upheld
the conviction on appeal but
reduced the sentence to two
years and a fine of Rs. 3,000.
Appeal finally was made to
apex court under Article 134
(1) (c) of the constitution.
46. Kedar Nath Bajoria & Anthr. Appeal against conviction of Supreme Court held that,
v. The State of West Bengal. appellant No. 1 for offence conviction of appellant for offence
under Section 120-B and Section 420 of IPC and 5 (2) of Act
[AIR 1954 SC 660] appellant No. 2 for offence of 1947 set aside and conviction for
under Section 420 of IPC and offence under Section 120-B
(Decided on :- 23-04-1954) 5 (2) of Act of 1947. Both were maintained. Also the sentence were
convicted and sentenced to modified and the appellant were

Page 27 of 62
 imprisonment and their ordered to pay fine of 2500 and
conviction was upheld by the 1000 respectively and in default to
High Court. Hence, the appeal serve imprisonment of three
to the apex court was months.
preferred.

47. Nar Singh & Anthr. v. State Twenty-four persons, among Appeal dismissed and the apex
of Uttar Pradesh. them the two appellants, were Court observed that the certificate
tried for offences under was wrongly granted and it is not a
[AIR 1954 SC 457] sections 148, 307/149 and proper case for special leave under
302/149, Indian Penal Code. Article 136 (1) as convictions are
(Decided on – 05-05-1954) Sixteen were acquitted and justified as based on clear findings
the remaining eight were and evidence. Thus it was held,
convicted. On appeal to the that there is no reason to interfere
High Court five more were with sentences and sentences are
acquitted and the only ones not severe as compared to alleged
whose convictions were offences and calls for no review.
upheld were these two
appellants, who preferred this
appeal by special leave.
48. Moti Das & Othrs. v. State of Appellants are six in number. Appeal dismissed and held that
Bihar. Five of them have been “We do not think prejudice is
convicted under Section 147, possible in this case. The First
[AIR 1954 SC 657] I. P. C. and sentenced to one Information Report sets out the
year's rigorous imprisonment facts in detail. They are simple.
(Decided on – 06-05-1954) each. The sixth, Misri Das, There are only six accused and a
was convicted under Sections few prosecution witnesses who
148 and 324, I. P. C. and have told their story shortly and
sentenced to fifteen months' concisely. Nobody could have been
rigorous imprisonment under misled by the omission to set out
the former. No separate the two objects of the assembly in
sentence was imposed under separate paragraphs. We therefore
Section 324. Appellants uphold the convictions under
charged for forming unlawful Section 147, I. P. C. and the
Page 28 of 62
 assembly with the intention to conviction of Misri Das under
steal paddy and assault X in Section 148. He was armed with a
the course of transaction of spear and used it, so his case falls
stealing - High Court squarely under that section once it
acquitted appellant of dacoity is conceded that the assembly was
charge and appeal was unlawful and hence the sentence
preferred against other and the conviction does not need
charges. any interference”.
49. Aftab Ahmad Khan v. The The appellant was tried and Death sentence was reduced to
State of Hyderabad. convicted by the Special transportation for life and all
Judge, Warangal, for various sentences were ordered to run
[AIR 1954 SC 436] offences under the Hyderabad concurrently and it was stated that
Panel Code. These correspond the appellant was not able to
(Decided on :- 06-05-1954) to section 302, 307, 347 and substantiate his contention of not
384 of the Indian Penal Code, having being given a fair trial so
the sentences awarded under appeal cannot be allowed on whole.
the first two sections
respectively being death and
life imprisonment, and
separate sentences of two
years' rigorous imprisonment
under the latter two. High
court affirmed the conviction
and sentence and hence, the
appeal by special leave was
made.
50. Madan Mohan Singh v. The Appellant was convicted Appellant acquitted and the apex
State of Uttar Pradesh. under Section 161 of the court observed that the High
Indian Penal Code and was Court's approach to the case has
[AIR 1954 SC 637] sentenced to rigorous been wrong from the start. It did
imprisonment for a term of 18 not apply the principles stated
(Decided on :- 06-05-1954) months by the High Court above which it was incumbent
which reversed the acquittal upon it to keep in mind when

Page 29 of 62
 order of the trial court. Hence, dealing with a judgment of
this appeal preferred by the acquittal. The reasons given by it to
appellant by special leave. overrule the estimate of evidence
made by the trial court which
heard and recorded it are in our
opinion altogether inadequate and
flimsy.
51. Chamru Budhwa v. State of Appellant convicted under Appeal was allowed and the
Madhya Pradesh. section 302 of the penal code sentence of transportation for life
and sentenced to was reduced to seven years
[AIR 1954 SC 652] transportation for life. This rigorous imprisonment as the
appeal by special leave was offence came under the purview of
(Decided on :- 25-05-1954) preferred by the appellant section of 304 of the penal code
with the question before the and not under 302 of the penal
supreme court that whether code and such sentence of
his offence came under 302 of transportation was not justified in
the penal code or under 304 the eyes of law.
of the penal code.
52. Marachalil Pakku & Another Appellants were convicted Appeal dismissed and the apex
v. State of Madras. under section 302 of the penal court stated that in this case there
code and sentenced to death. can be no doubt whatsoever that
[AIR 1954 SC 648] The conviction and sentence the two appellants along with five
were confirmed by the High others came with the purpose and
(Decided on :- 25-05-1954) court. Hence, the present with the common object of putting
appeal was preferred. an end to the life of Kannan. That
being so, the conviction of
appellants 1 and 2 for murder
under Section 302 read with
Section 149 is fully justified. We do
not think that there has been any
mis-joinder of charges in this case.
But even if it be so, that mis-

Page 30 of 62
 joinder has not caused any
prejudice in the case.

53. S.A.A. Biyabani v. State of Appellant has appealed by Appellant acquitted and the
Madras. special leave against the Supreme court observed that the
judgment of the High Court of judgment of the High Court
[AIR 1954 SC 645] Madras which reversed the discloses no adequate reason for
acquittal of the appellant and the reversal of the acquittal with
(Decided on :- 28-05-1954) convicted him under Section reference to the standards laid
44 of the Madras District down by this Court. The appellant
Police Act. was entitled to the benefit of doubt
and the acquittal should not have
been set aside.
54. Inder Singh Bagga Singh v. Appellant convicted under Appellant’s conviction under 302 of
State of Pepsu. section 302 of the Indian the penal code converted into
penal code and sentenced to conviction under 304 part I and the
[AIR 1955 SC 439] transportation for life and his sentence was eventually reduced to
conviction was confirmed by 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
(Decided on :- 06-08-1954) the High Court. Hence this The ground for such conversion as
appeal by special leave was stated by the apex court was that
made to the apex court. the injuries made by the appellant
was not sufficient in ordinary
course of nature to cause death as
the deceased survived for three
weeks and then died.
55. Kapur Singh v. State of Appellant convicted under Conviction of the appellant altered
Pepsu. section 302 of the Indian from one under section 302 to that
penal code and sentenced to under section 304 part 1 of the
[AIR 1956 SC 654] death and his conviction was penal code and the sentence of
confirmed by the High Court. death was reduced into sentence
(Decided on :- 15-09-1954) Hence this appeal by special for transportation for life. The
Page 31 of 62
 leave was made to the apex court deemed such conversion
court. justified in the eyes of law as per
the facts and circumstances and
the nature of the offence
committed.

56. Kunjilal & Another v. State Appellants were convicted for Appeal dismissed and the
of Madhya Pradesh. the offence under section 392 conviction and the sentence
and section 332, Indian Penal upheld. The contention of the
[AIR 1955 SC 280] Code. They were sentenced appellant was found baseless and
under the former to 1 year's without any merit and provided no
(Decided on :- 08-10-1954) rigorous imprisonment and scope for interference in the matter
under the latter to a fine of Rs. as per the evidences and findings
500 each. Their convictions of the trial court.
were upheld on appeal but
Kunjilal's sentence was
reduced to six months R.I.
and Rs. 350 fine, while Deopal
was bound over under section
562 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the sentence of
imprisonment was set aside.
His fine was reduced under
section 332, Indian Penal
Code, to Rs. 250. They carried
the matter further in revision
to High Court but it was
dismissed. Appeal filed under
Article 136 of the constitution

Page 32 of 62
57. Mahesh Prasad v. State of Appellant convicted under Appeal dismissed as the court
Uttar Pradesh. section 161 of the Indian observed that all the contentions
Penal Code and sentenced to raised before it were untenable and
[AIR 1955 SC 70] rigorous imprisonment for stated that, “it has been
one year and nine months, represented to us that the
(Decided on :- 29-10-1954) and also to a fine of Rs. 200. appellant who has been refused
The conviction and sentence bail by this court when leave to
had been upheld by the appeal was granted but has been
Sessions Judge on appeal and granted bail subsequently has
by the High Court in revision. already served nearly six months of
Hence, this appeal was made imprisonment in the intervening
to the apex court. period, that he is a young man and
has lost his job. In the
circumstances we consider that it
is not necessary to send him back
to jail. The result, therefore, is that
the appeal is dismissed subject to
the modification of sentence of
imprisonment. We reduce the
sentence of imprisonment to the
period already undergone. The
sentence of fine stands”.
58. Ramjanam Singh v. The Appellant Ramjanam Singh Conviction and the sentence was
State of Bihar. was prosecuted under Section set aside. The Supreme Court
161, Penal Code, read with stated that in our opinion, the
[AIR 1956 SC 643] Section 5, Prevention of reasons given by the High Court
Corruption Act, 1947, for are not enough to justify the
having accepted a bribe. He setting aside of the acquittal. The
(Decided on :- 02-11-1954) was acquitted by the trying strong presumption of innocence
Magistrate but was convicted and the doubts which the
by the High Court on an numerous circumstances to which
appeal against the acquittal we have adverted and which are
and was sentenced to one given in greater detail in the first

Page 33 of 62
 year's rigorous imprisonment. Court raise have not been
He was given special leave to displaced.
appeal by this Court.

59. Edward Ezra & Another v. The two appellants were Conviction and sentence set aside
State of West Bengal. convicted for offence under and direction was issued for retrial
section 72 of the Government of the accused by a competent
[AIR 1955 SC 155] of India Act, 1935, on charges Court and further it was held, that
of bribery as also of only court competent to try these
(Decided on :- 30-11-1954) conspiracy under section cases would be the Special Court
120B of the Indian Penal under Act 12 of 1952.
Code, read with section 420 of
the Code which was later on
replaced by section 409. The
trial ended in conviction of all
the accused, though not on all
the charges brought against
them and the Tribunal
sentenced them to various
terms of imprisonment and
fine. High Court directed
retrial and rejected the
quashing petition of the
appellants. Hence this appeal.
60. Pandurang, Tukia and Five persons, including the Conviction of one of the appellant
Bhillia v. The State of three appellants, were was changed from that under 302
Hyderabad. prosecuted for the murder of to that under 326 of the penal code
one person. Each was and was sentenced to 10 years
[AIR 1955 SC 216] convicted and each was rigorous imprisonment and for the
sentenced to death under other two the sentence of death
(Decided on :- 03-12-1954) section 302 of the Indian was reduced and converted into
Penal Code. Leave was sentence of transportation for life
Page 34 of 62
 refused by the High court to because the court was of the
those whose sentenced was opinion that for awarding death
reduced to life imprisonment, sentence the judges must have a
hence the appeal by leave only concur opinion and there should
by those sentenced to death. not be any difference in opinion.

61. Shreekantiah Ramayya Both the appellants were The apex court ordered the retrial
Munipalli v. The State of found guilty of the offence and quashed the sentence and
Bombay. under section 409 and 34 of conviction and took notice of the
the Indian Penal code and sentence already been served by
[AIR 1955 SC 287] were sentenced to one year the appellant no.1 and thus in his
and two year imprisonment case ordered refund of fine , if any
(Decided on :- 22-12-1954) with fine of 500 each and only upon retrial of the case and
three to four months thus second appellant was put
imprisonment in case of forth for retrial.
default. Appeal preferred
against the decision of the
High court.
62. Nanak Chand v. The State of Appellant convicted under Appeal was accordingly allowed
Punjab. section 302 of the Indian and the conviction and the
penal code and sentenced to sentence of the appellant was set
[AIR 1955 SC 274] death and his conviction was aside and the case of the appellant
confirmed by the High Court. was remanded to the court of
(Decided on :- 25-01-1955) Hence this appeal by special Sessions at Jullundur for retrial
leave was made to the apex after framing a charge under
court. section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and in accordance with law.
The court stated the reason as it is
difficult to hold in the
circumstances of the present case
that the appellant was not
prejudiced by the non-framing of a
charge under section 302, Indian
Penal Code.
Page 35 of 62
63. Rishideo Pande v. The State Appellant and his brother Appeal dismissed and the sentence
of Uttar Pradesh. were convicted by Session and conviction of the appellant
Judge for the offence under upheld and it was observed that
[AIR 1955 SC 331] Section 302, 34 of the penal there was no misapplication of
code and sentenced to death Section 34 as murder was caused
(Decided on :- 03-02-1955) for murder of X. Their appeal in furtherance of common
was dismissed by the High intention.
Court. Hence, present appeal.
64. Ram Narain v. State of Appellant charged for offence While maintaining the conviction
Punjab. under Sections 467 and 471 of the appellant for the charge
for fraudulently and under Section 467 read with
[AIR 1955 SC 322] dishonestly using a forged Section 471 of the Penal Code and
document as genuine or had the sentence of 41/2 years' rigorous
(Decided on :- 11-02-1955) reasons to believe at the time imprisonment imposed upon him
he used it to be a forged by both the Courts below the
document. The trial supreme court set aside the
Magistrate convicted the sentence of fine imposed upon him
appellant for the offence and by the High Court and the sentence
sentenced him to 4 ½ years of of rigorous imprisonment in
rigorous imprisonment. His default of payment thereof.
conviction was confirmed by
High Court. Hence, present
appeal.
65. Sm. Ram Devi v. State of Appellant was convicted Appellant acquitted and the
Uttar Pradesh. under Section 366 Penal Code supreme court was of the opinion
and was sentenced to 3 years' that both the Courts below were in
[AIR 1955 SC 574] rigorous imprisonment. High error in convicting the appellant of
court confirmed his the offence under Section 366,
(Decided on :- 22-02-1955) conviction and this appeal Penal Code. We accordingly set
was made by appellant upon aside her conviction and the
special leave. sentence on the ground that there
were no clear evidences depicting

Page 36 of 62
 clear involvement of the appellant
in the offence committed.

66. Amrik Singh v. The State of Appellant was acquitted by Appeal allowed and the conviction
Pepsu. the trial court but the High and sentence of the appellant set
Court convicted him for the aside and it was observed that the
[AIR 1955 SC 309] offence under section 409 and acts with which the appellant is
465 of Indian Penal code and charged fall within the scope of his
(Decided on :- 28-02-1955) against the conviction this duties, and can be justified by him
appeal was made to the apex as done by virtue of his office.
court. Clearly, therefore, sanction was
required under section 197(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure
before the appellant could be
prosecuted under section 409, and
the absence of such sanction is
fatal to the maintainability of the
prosecution. The conviction
should, therefore, be quashed.
67. Suraj Pal v. The State of The sole appellant before the The convictions of the appellant
Uttar Pradesh. apex court had been under sections 307 and 302 of the
convicted by the Sessions Indian Penal Code and the
[AIR 1955 SC 419] Court under a sections 148, sentences were set aside. But his
307 and 302 of the Indian conviction under section 148 of the
(Decided on :- 01-03-1955) Penal Code, and sentenced to Indian Penal Code was maintained
rigorous imprisonment for and also the sentence of two years
two and a half years under and a half in respect thereof. The
section 148, to transportation court did not order retrial of this
for life under section 307, and case as it was convinced that in the
to death under section 302. interest of justice the same was not
These convictions and required. It was held that where a
Page 37 of 62
 sentences have been person had been charged along
confirmed by the High Court. with others under Sections 302
and 307 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 each, only as read with
Section 149 of the Code, his
convictions and sentences for the
substantial offences under
Sections 302 and 307 of the Code
was erroneous.
68. Dhirendra Nath Mitra and Appellants were initially Appellants acquitted and the
Anr. v. Mukanda Lal Sen. acquitted by the trial court decision of the trial magistrate was
but were later on appeal ordered to be restored. It was held,
[AIR1955 SC 584] convicted for offences under High Court had not adverted to any
section 448, 427, 380, 166 of the factors which must be
(Decided on :- 01-03-1955) and 114 of the penal code, present before interference was
and hence this appeal was called for. Also, the supreme court
made to this apex court. observed that the High Court did
not provide reason upon its
consideration of evidences as
against one of them and in favor of
the other.
69. Dasrath Gond & Others v. Appellants convicted for Appeal dismissed and the
The State of Orissa. offence under Section 302 for conviction and the sentence of the
murder of X. All appellants appellant as confirmed by the High
[AIR 1955 SC 583] were sentenced to three years court were upheld due to the
of rigorous imprisonment. On reason that facts revealed that X
(Decided on :- 15-03-1955) appeal High Court enhanced was brutally murdered in a fit of
sentence to seven years of superstition and the circumstance
rigorous imprisonment on the in which this attack was made
ground that the alleged act called for a deterrent sentence.
constituted murder. Hence, Thus no need was felt to interfere
present appeal was preferred with the sentence awarded by High
Court which shows that in

Page 38 of 62
 and was limited to the enhancing the sentences the
question of sentence only. learned Judges were mainly
influenced by their view of the facts
that the offence committed by the
appellants before them in fact
constituted murder under Section
302 I. P. C. and not merely grievous
hurt under Section 325, I.P.C.
70. Ram Shankar Singh & Appellants convicted for The conviction and the sentence of
Others v. The State of Uttar offence of dacoity under the appellants was set aside by the
Pradesh Section 395 of the penal code supreme court.
and sentenced to seven years
[AIR 1956 SC 441] of rigorous imprisonment. On In the opinion of the Supreme
appeal High Court court there was no sufficient
(Decided on :- 19-04-1955) maintained conviction of reasons for differentiating the case
appellants but acquitted three of the appellants from that of the
others accused. Hence, other accused who were acquitted
appellant preferred appeal to by the High Court. High Court
this apex court. failed to see if there was enough
evidence to convict the appellants.
Also, the Supreme Court observed
that it is not a fit case for retrial as
appellants had already been in jail
for three years period as sentence
which was enough for offence
under 392.
71. Mohinder Singh v. The Appellant convicted under Appellant acquitted as in the
State of Punjab. section 302 of the Indian opinion of the supreme court the
penal code and sentenced to evidences produced did not
[AIR 1955 SC 762] death and his conviction was effectively proved the guilt of the
confirmed by the High Court. appellant. Evidences of witnesses
(Decided on :- 13-09-1955) Hence this appeal by special were not justified to result into the
conviction of the appellant and

Page 39 of 62
 leave was made to the apex hence forth he was ordered to be
court. released to liberty.

72. Atley v. The State of Uttar Appellant initially acquitted Appeal dismissed with an
Pradesh. by the trial court but upon observation that there is no ground
[AIR 1955 SC 807] appeal by the State, the High for interference with the conviction
Court convicted him for the of the High Court. Also, the
(Decided on :- 16-09-1955) offence under section 302 of circumstances too indicate that
the Indian Penal code and beyond any reasonable doubt the
sentenced him to appellant was truly responsible in
transportation for life. the murder of the victim.
73. Prabhuji Babaji Navle v. The Appellant charged for offence The appeal was allowed. The
State of Bombay. of murder. The Session Judge conviction and sentence were set
convicted appellant and his aside and the appellant was
[AIR 1956 SC 51] two sons for the offence under acquitted of the charge made
Section 302/34 for the offence against him. Evidences not capable
of murder but on appeal High to prove the guilt beyond all
(Decided on :- 19-09-1955) Court upheld the conviction reasonable doubt and there was no
of appellant and set aside evidence to show that there was
conviction of his sons. Hence, prior consensus as required under
present appeal was preferred Section 34. Thus it was held, that
by the appellant against the the conviction cannot stand
judgment of the High Court. without the aid of Section 34 and
thus liable to be set aside.

Page 40 of 62
74. Nathu v. State of Uttar Appellant convicted under Conviction and sentence were set
Pradesh. section 302 of the Indian aside by the Supreme Court on the
penal code on basis of the ground that there were no reliable
[AIR 1956 SC 56] confession made by the co evidence upon which the
accused and sentenced to conviction can be made. The only
(Decided on :- 21-09-1955) death and his conviction was confession of the co-accused
confirmed by the High Court. cannot be relied upon to inflict
Hence this appeal by special such severe punishment. Also, the
leave was made to the apex confession cannot be acted upon
court because it is not considered as
voluntary confession as per the law
and has significantly low
evidentiary value.
75. Narayanan Nair Raghavan Appellant convicted under Appeal dismissed with reducing
Nair v. The State of section 302 of the Indian the sentence from death to
Travancore – Cochin. Penal code and sentenced to transportation for life on the
death. Sentence and ground that there was no
[AIR 1956 SC 99] conviction was confirmed by premeditation and the act was
the High Court. Hence, this committed in sudden fit of anger
(Decided on :- 26-09-1955) present appeal was preferred and thus the sentence of death is
by the appellant. not proper sentence for this case
under the present facts,
circumstances and evidences on
record.
76. Machander v. State of Appellant convicted under Appellant was acquitted. It was
Hyderabad. section 302 of the Indian held that the failure of the Court in
Penal code and sentenced to the case was not merely technical
[AIR 1955 SC 792] death. Sentence and and retrial of the case would be
conviction was confirmed by unjust to the accused. Thus the
(Decided on :- 27-09-1955) the High Court. Hence, this order of conviction and the
present appeal was preferred sentence passed against the
by the appellant accused was set aside.

Page 41 of 62
77. Deonandan Mishra v. The Appellant convicted for Appeal was dismissed and the
State of Bihar. murder of his wife under sentence was upheld. The
section 302 of the Indian explanations offered by accused
[AIR 1955 SC 801] penal code and was sentenced were not satisfactory and lacked
to transportation for life. High merit. Also various links were
(Decided on :- 28-09-1955) Court confirmed his sentence established and the Supreme
and thus appeal by special Court held that, accused should be
leave to the Supreme Court. convicted as circumstances point
towards him as probable assailant
with reasonable definiteness.
78. Bed Raj v. State of Uttar Appellant convicted of offence Appeal was allowed and the
Pradesh. under section 304 of the enhancement of sentence was
Indian penal code and was regarded as unjustified in the eyes
[AIR 1955 SC 801] sentenced to three years of of law and as such the sentence of
rigorous imprisonment and the session’s judge was restored.
(Decided on :- 27-09-1955) thus he moved High Court
where his appeal was The Apex court stated that, “In a
dismissed and the sentence matter of enhancement there
was enhanced to ten years should not be interference when
rigorous imprisonment. Thus the sentence passed imposes
appeal was preferred to the substantial punishment.
apex court on the issue of Interference is only called for when
enhancement of sentence it is manifestly inadequate. In our
whether justified in the eyes opinion, these principles have not
of law ? been observed. It is impossible to
hold in the circumstances
described that the Sessions Judge
did not impose a substantial
sentence, and no adequate reason
has been assigned by the learned
High Court Judges for considering
the sentence manifestly
inadequate”.

Page 42 of 62
79. Rawalpenta Venkalu & The two appellants were Appeal dismissed and the sentence
Another v. State of convicted under section 302 and conviction by the High court
Hyderabad. of the Indian Penal code and was upheld. The circumstances
sentenced to death. Sentence disclosed in the evidence further
[AIR 1956 SC 171] and conviction was confirmed pointed to the conclusion that the
by the High Court. Hence, this offence was committed after a pre-
(Decided on :- 07-10-1955) present appeal was preferred concerted plan to set fire to the
by the appellants. cottage after the man had as usual
occupied the room and had gone to
sleep. There was no doubt
therefore that on the evidence led
by the prosecution in this case the
charge of murder has been brought
home against both the Appellants
and that in the circumstances
there is no question but that they
deserve the extreme penalty of the
law.
80. Mathurala Addy Reddy v. Appellant convicted under Appeal dismissed. It was observed
The State of Hyderabad. Section 302 of the Indian that the High Court while
Penal Code and the death confirming the sentence of death
[AIR 1956 SC 177] sentence of the appellant for has recommended that the
having committed the murder Government might commute the
(Decided on :- 07-10-1955) of one Rami Reddy. He was sentence to one of transportation
also convicted under Section for life. We have not been informed
307, Indian Penal Code for whether that has been carried out
having attempted to murder or not and no argument has been
P. W. 2, Venkata Reddy, and advanced to us on the question of
sentenced to seven years' sentence. Nothing that we have
rigorous imprisonment. High said in our judgment is intended or
Court confirmed his meant to weaken the
conviction and sentence and recommendation of the High Court
hence this appeal by special in this behalf.

Page 43 of 62
 leave was made to Supreme
Court.

81. Topandas v. State of Appellant was convicted and Appellant was acquitted with
Bombay sentenced for the offence respect to his conviction and
under section 420, 465, 471 sentence under section 120 B of
[AIR 1956 SC 33] and 120 B of the Indian Penal the penal code and same was
code and was sentenced to connoted as illegal but with respect
(Decided on :- 14-10-1955) various terms to run to other charges, the apex court
concurrently. Against High declined to interfere with an
Court confirmation of the observation that the High Court
conviction this appeal to apex has rightly convicted the appellant
court was preferred. for the rest of the offences and
hence no scope for interference
with them has been left out.
82. Baladin & Others v. State of Appeal being made by the first Appeal of some of the appellants
Uttar Pradesh. appellant along with other was allowed and they were
[AIR 1956 SC 181] accused against the judgment acquitted due to benefit of doubt
of the High court in which it but where the prosecution
(Decided on :- 18-10-1955) affirmed his convictions and succeeded in proving the case
sentences under Sections beyond any doubt the apex court
148, 452, 302/149 and with respect to those appellant
201/149, Indian Penal Code dismissed the appeal and upheld
and accepted the reference, the conviction and sentence
by confirming the sentence of admitting no scope of interference.
death passed against him in
respect of the charge under
Section 302/149.

Page 44 of 62
83. Abdul Sattar v. The State of Appellant charged for offence Appeal dismissed and it was
Mysore. of murder punishable under observed by the apex court that
Section 302. Appellant was appellant was seen with several
acquitted by Session Judge disinterested witnesses at the time
on ground that prosecution and place of incident and then
evidence was too insufficient immediately after the incident was
to base a conviction. On seen running from the spot and did
appeal, High Court set aside not make appearance for three
acquittal and convicted months. Dying declaration
appellant for offence under corroborated by eye witnesses.
Section 302 and inflicted him Held, High Court justified in
with the punishment of setting side Order of acquittal.
transportation of life. Hence,
present appeal was preferred.
84. Gurcharan Singh & Another Two appellants in this case Appeal dismissed with an
v. State of Punjab. who had been convicted and observation that there were ample
sentenced to transportation material on record to suffice that
[AIR 1956 SC 460] for life under section 302 of the appellants had motive as well
the penal code and their intention to commit the alleged
[Decided on :- 02-11-1955] sentences had been upheld by offence and by the version of
the High court, hence, they witnesses and the findings of the
have made this appeal before trial court, there is no scope of
the Supreme Court. interference with the sentence and
conviction.
85. Chhutanni v. State of Uttar Appeal against conviction for Appeal dismissed and it was
Pradesh. offence under Section 302/34 observed that there was presence
Appellant was charged for of strong motive for the appellant
[AIR 1956 SC 407] offence under Section 302 for to commit murder. Deceased was
the offence of murder of his found dead soon after going with
(Decided on :- 03-11-1955) wife and cousin. Presence of appellant. Appellant failed to
strong evidences led to explain as to what happened to his
confirmation of the conviction companion with whom he got out
in the evening. Also, blood stained

Page 45 of 62
 and sentence by the High weapon recovered from the house
Court. of appellant and thus it was held,
that there was no reason to
interfere with the decision of High
Court.

86. Pritam Singh & Another v. Appellants charged for Appeal dismissed. The Supreme
State of Punjab. committing murder of two court stated that the High Court
persons in furtherance of was quite correct in the summary
[AIR 1956 SC 415] common intention - Convicted of the evidence against each of
by Session Judge. Appeal them and in holding that the
(Decided on :- 04-11-1955) dismissed by High Court. prosecution had succeeded in
Hence, present appeal to the establishing the guilt of the
apex court. accused in regard to the offences
with which they had been charged.
87. Kacheru Singh & Othrs. .v. Appellants were charged for Appeal dismissed and it was held
State of Uttar Pradesh. offence under Sections 148, that there is nothing exceptional to
323 and 326/149 and show that there has been
[AIR 1956 SC 546] convicted for the aforesaid miscarriage of justice by the High
charges. Conviction was Court judges. Whatever doubts
(Decided on :- 10-11-1955) maintained by Second there might have been about the
Additional Judge. On appeal participation of other persons in
High Court held that the occurrence, the participation of
conviction under Section 148 the appellants in the occurrence
or Sections 323 and 326/149 was proved beyond reasonable
could not be maintained as doubt.
ingredients to establish an
existence of unlawful
assembly was absent. Thus,
High Court upheld
convictions for offence under
Sections 323 and 326/34.
Hence, present appeal was
filed.

Page 46 of 62
88. Tilkeshwar Singh & Others The appellants were convicted Appeal dismissed and it was held
v. State of Bihar. under section 302 read with that the joint recording of the
section 34, and were statements of witnesses was
[AIR 1956 SC 238] sentenced to transportation against the provisions of Section
for life. The Session Judge 161(3) of CCP. However, the Court
(Decided on :- 08-12-1955) also convicted some under could decide on the reliability of
section 147 and the others such testimony. Further, the Court
under section 148, but had the power to substitute the
imposed no separate sentence charge made under Section 149 of
under those sections. The IPC to that under Section 34 of IPC
appellants took the matter in and the filing of statement by the
appeal to the High Court of accused instead of his examination
Patna. The learned Judges could not be challenged unless he
agreed with the Sessions was shown to be prejudiced by
Judge in his conclusions of that.
fact, but altered the
conviction from one under
section 302 read with section
34 to one under section 326
read with section 149, and the
sentence from transportation
for life to various terms of
imprisonment
89. K.C.Mathews & Others v. Appellants were convicted Appeal dismissed but also allowed
State of Travancore – and sentenced to to the extent that the sentence
Cochin transportation for life under should run concurrently and not
section 302 read with 149 of consecutively. The guilt was proved
[AIR 1956 SC 241] the penal code by the High beyond any element of doubt and
Court on appeal of state thus there was no scope for
(Decided on :- 15-12-1955) against their acquittal. Hence, interference with the decision of
this pre4sent appeal was the High Court.
preferred by the appellants to
the Supreme Court.

Page 47 of 62
90. Wasim Khan v. The State of Appellant was sentenced to Appeal dismissed. The Supreme
Uttar Pradesh. death for the murder of one court stated that having regard to
Ram Dularey. He was also what is established in the case and
[AIR 1956 SC 256] sentenced to seven years' the principles deducible from the
rigorous imprisonment for cases cited, we are satisfied that
(Decided on :- 12-03-1955) having robbed the murdered the appellant has been rightly
man of his goods. High Court convicted of the offences of murder
confirmed his conviction and and robbery.
sentence.
91. Sukha & Others v. The State Appellants (nine persons) Appeal dismissed with an
of Rajasthan. were convicted and sentenced observation that the evidences on
to lesser sentence of record prove the involvement of the
[AIR 1956 SC 513] transportation for life for appellants in the alleged incident
offence under section 302 and beyond elements of any sort of
(Decided on :- 05-04-1956) 149 of the Indian penal code doubt. Hence, the High Court was
by the High Court which correct in its view convicting and
reversed the acquittal order of sentencing the appellants under
the session court upon state’s section 302 and 149 of the penal
appeal against their acquittal. code.
Hence, this appeal was
preferred by the appellants.
92. Kapil Deo Singh v. The King Appellant was convicted for Case remanded to High Court for
the offence under section 147 rehearing with setting aside
[1950 SuppSCR 144] of the Indian penal code and conviction and sentence by the
was sentenced to five years Supreme Court. Principle
(Decided on :- 24-01-1950) rigorous imprisonment. High regarding exercise of criminal
Court confirmed his jurisdiction was observed and
conviction and sentence and stated that this court is no longer
thus he preferred this present bound by the Privy Council
appeal. practice and can leave to appeal
where clear departure from
requirements of justice has been
done.

Page 48 of 62
93. Prandas v. State. Appellant was earlier Based upon the findings of the trial
[AIR 1954 SC 36] acquitted by the Sessions court and circumstances of the
Court but was upon appeal of cases, the apex court altered the
(Decided on :- 14-03-1950) state convicted by the High punishment from Sec.302 to that
Court under section 302 and under Sec.304 of I.P.C and allowed
323 of the penal code and the benefit of exception 4 of Sec.
sentenced to transportation 300 of I.P.C to the appellant. The
for life and three months of Supreme Court stated that the
rigorous imprisonment. view of High Court that Appellant
Hence this appeal was made was not entitled to benefit of
by special leave by the exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C.
appellant against the order of could not be sustained, and
High Court. conviction under Section 302 could
not stand. Hence, conviction of
Appellant was altered to one under
Section 304, and conviction under
Section 323 of I.P.C. would stand.
94. Lakhi Narayan Das & Others Sixteen appeals arise out of as Appeal dismissed as the court
v. The Province of Bihar. many applications presented declined to enter into questions of
by the different appellants facts.
[ [1950] SuppSCR 102 ] under section 491 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, Interpretation of the terms “
(Decided on :- 30-03-1950) complaining of illegal Preventive Detention” was done
detention under section 2 (1) and other related provisions were
(a) of the Bihar Maintenance interpreted.
of Public Order Ordinance,
1949
95. Dr. Babu Ram Saksena v. An appeal by special leave Principle of reciprocity was not
The State. from an order of the High applied in this matter as it could no
Court at Allahabad longer be insisted upon whether
[AIR 1950 SC 155] dismissing an application the criminal be a British subject or
under sections 491 and 561- not. If he has broken the laws of a
(Decided on :- 05-05-1950) A of the Code of Criminal foreign country his liability to be

Page 49 of 62
 Procedure for release of the tried by them ought not to depend
appellant who was arrested in upon his nationality. The
pursuance of an extradition convenience of trying crimes in the
warrant issued by the country where they were
Regional Commissioner of the committed is obvious.
United State of Rajasthan
who is the principal officer
representing the Crown in the
territory of that State.
96. Pritam Singh v. The State. High Court upheld the Appeal dismissed with an
sentence of death of the observation that there is no scope
[AIR 1950 SC 169] appellant for his conviction of interference with the sentence
under section 302 of the penal and conviction affirmed by the
(Decided on :- 05-05-1950) code by the Sessions Judge High Court and as it appears there
and thus this appeal was has been no miscarriage of justice
preferred by the appellant. in this matter. Also, interpretation
of Article 136 of the Constitution
was done and its scope was
examined.
97. Joylal Agarwala v. The Two Criminal appeal from Appeal dismissed and the sentence
State. conviction of the appellant by and the conviction upheld with an
the High Court at Calcutta for observation that the High Court
[AIR 1951 SC 484] offences under Essential was right in convicting the
Supplies Act for selling appellant as per the
(Decided on :- 04-10-1951) textiles at rates higher than circumstances, findings and facts.
controlled prices.
98. The State of West Bengal v. An appeal by the State of West Special Court followed the
Anwar Ali Sarkar. Bengal from a judgment of a principle of varying sentence as per
Full Bench of the High Court the gravity of offence, it also took
[AIR 1952 SC 75] of Judicature at Calcutta into consideration various other
quashing the conviction of the factors like intention, motive and
(Decided on :- 11-01-1952) respondent by the Special knowledge in determining the
Court established under

Page 50 of 62
 section 3 of the West Bengal quantum of punishment for each
Special Courts Ordinance, accused.
1949.
However, the apex court dismissed
the appeal of State.

99. Chelloor Mankkal Narayan Appeal by special leave Sentence of imprisonment already
Ittiravi Nambudiri v. State directed against a judgment of been served by the accused during
of Travancore-Cochin. the High Court of Travancore- the pendency of the appeal and any
Cochin dated July 16, 1951 further trial would not be proper in
[AIR 1953 SC 478] passed in Criminal Appeal No. the interest of justice. So the apex
194 of 1950, by which the court ordered acquittal of the
(Decided on :- 10-11-1952) learned Judges set aside an accused by setting aside the order
order of acquittal. Appellant of the High Court.
charged for offence under
Section 147 for accepting
illegal gratification and for
offence under Section 389 for
criminal breach of trust and
also for abetment and
entering into conspiracy for
commission of these offences.
100 Kalawati & Another v. The One of the appellant was Sentence of death of one of the
. State of Himachal Pradesh. convicted for murder and appellant substituted by sentence
[AIR 1953 SC 131]. sentenced to death while the of transportation for life taking into
other was punished with consideration the time elapsed and
(Decided on :- 19-01-1953) transportation for life and the motive behind commission of
thus both of them preferred the alleged act. For another
this appeal against the appellant, her conviction and
judgment of the High Court. sentence under section 302 was
discharged but she was convicted
under section 201 of the Indian
Penal Code upon consideration of

Page 51 of 62
 facts and circumstances of the
case.

101 Bijoy Chandra Patra v. The Appellant was convicted Supreme court sustained the
. State. under section 326 of the conviction under section 326 of the
Indian penal code and was penal code and stated that
[AIR 1952 SC 105] sentenced to 3 years rigorous conviction under Section 326 is
imprisonment by the Sessions proper even in absence of charge.
(Decided on :- 14-12-1951) Judge, Midnapore. High The contention that accused was
Court confirmed his not examined as required as per
conviction and thus this Section 342 was turned down, it
appeal by special leave was was stated that the accused has
made by the appellant further to show that such
challenging his conviction. examination materially prejudiced
him and as such there is no
materials to show that prejudice
was done to the accused.
102 Surajpal Singh & Others v. The appellants were tried by Supreme court restored the
. The State. the Sessions Judge on judgment of Sessions Court and
charges under section 302 ordered acquittal of the appellant
[AIR 1952 SC 52] read with section 149, section on an observation that the High
148, sections 325 and 326 Court has full power to review the
(Decided on :- 20-12-1951) read with section 149, and evidence upon which the order of
section 201 of the Indian acquittal was founded, but it is
Penal Code, but were equally well-settled that the
acquitted. On appeal by the presumption of innocence of the
State Government, the High accused is further reinforced by his
Court reversed the Sessions acquittal by the trial court, and the
Judge's decision, and findings of the trial court which
convicted the appellants and had the advantage of seeing the

Page 52 of 62
 sentenced them to witnesses and hearing their
transportation for life under evidence can be reversed only for
section 302 read with section very substantial and compelling
149, to five years' rigorous reasons.
imprisonment under sections On the whole, we are inclined to
325 and 326 read with section hold that the Sessions Judge had
149, and to two years' taken a reasonable view of the facts
rigorous imprisonment under of the case, and in our opinion
section 147 of the Indian there were no good reasons for
Penal Code, all the sentences reversing that view. The assessors
being made to run with whose aid the trial was held,
concurrently. Thus this were unanimously of the opinion
appeal was preferred by that the accused were not guilty,
special leave. and though 25 persons were
placed on trial on identical
evidence, the State Government
preferred an appeal only against 5
of them on sole ground that the
acquittal was against the weight of
evidence on the record.
103 Rameshwar v. The State of Appellant Rameshwar was Appeal dismissed and the decision
. Rajasthan. charged with committing rape of the High court was upheld. The
on a young girl Mst. Purni, Supreme court held that - In the
[AIR 1952 SC 54] eight years of age. He was present case, the learned High
committed to Sessions and Court Judges would have acted on
(Decided on :- 20-12-1951) was convicted by the the uncorroborated testimony of
Assistant Sessions Judge. the girl had they not felt pressed by
Sawai Jaipur, and sentenced the corroboration rule. Viewing all
to one year's rigorous the circumstances I am satisfied
imprisonment and a fine of that the High Court was right. I am
Rs. 250. The appellate satisfied that in this case,
authority at that time was considering the conduct of the girl
Sessions judge who acquitted and her mother from start to finish,

Page 53 of 62
 the appellant but High court no corroboration beyond the
reversed the acquittal and statement of the child to her
restored the conviction and mother was necessary. I am
sentence. Hence this appeal satisfied that the High Court was
was made to the Supreme right in holding that that was
court. enough to make it safe to act on
her testimony.
104 Jangal Prasad v. The State. The appellant was tried by a Sentence imposed upon the
. Magistrate of Jabalpur on the Appellant was quashed and appeal
[AIR 1953 SC 467] charge of having committed was allowed. It was held, that there
an offence under Section 377, was nothing on record to show that
(Decided on :- 20-12-1951) Penal Code and was found the High Court either appreciated
guilty. While sentencing the the necessity of issuing or did issue
appellant, the Magistrate a notice to the accused to show
observed as follows:- "The cause why his sentence should not
accused is a first offender of be enhanced or altered. If notice
18 years of age. A deterrent was intended to be issued then
sentence would be highly there would have been an express
inappropriate in this case. I order to that effect in the Order
accordingly order that the sheet. There was nothing to show
accused shall receive 10 that the accused personally had
stripes under Section 4(b), any notice that the sentence of
Whipping Act in lieu of the whipping was to be substituted by
sentence provided under a sentence of imprisonment.
Section 377, I. P. C."
The sentence imposed on the
appellant was upheld by the
Sessions Judge of Jabalpur,
but, in revision, the Madhya
Pradesh High Court pointed
out that the sentence of
whipping was illegal since the
appellant was not a juvenile

Page 54 of 62
 offender. The High Court
accordingly set aside the
sentence of whipping and
sentenced the appellant to
nine months' rigorous
imprisonment. Hence this
appeal by the appellant.
105 Bhagwan Singh v. The State The appellant Bhagwan Singh Appeal dismissed as the court felt
. of Punjab. has been convicted of the no reason to interfere with the
murder of one Bunggar Singh sentence of death. The appellant
[AIR 1952 SC 214] and sentenced to death. He was caught red handed with the
has also been convicted under pistol on the spot and the case is
(Decided on :- 30-04-1952) Section 19(f) of the Indian simple one with crystal clear facts
Arms Act and this was and apt evidences. Also the
confirmed by the High Court. contention of the appellant that
Hence, this appeal was made prescribed procedure was not
against the judgment of the followed is baseless.
High Court.
106 Rameshwar Bhartia v. The Appellant was convicted Sentence was reduced. The court
. State of Assam. under Assam Food Grains stated that, we generally do not
Control Order, 1947 by interfere in the matter of sentence,
[AIR 1952 SC 405] Additional District Magistrate but in this case we find that the
for possessing more than Magistrate has held that the
(Decided on :- 23-10-1952) allowed quantity of paddy and appellant's plea that he was
fined Rs. 50. He pleaded ignorant of the provisions of the
guilty and ignorance, Assam Food Grains Control Order,
Reference was made by 1947, was a genuine one. Having
District Magistrate to High regard to this circumstance and
Court for increased the fact that from a fine of Rs. 50
punishment. Increased to 6 months' rigorous
imprisonment punishment to imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
one month and fine of Rs 1,000 is a big jump, we think it is
1000 and gave direction to appropriate that the sentence of

Page 55 of 62
 Trial Court to proceed under imprisonment imposed by the High
Section 514 for failure to Court should be set aside and we
produce paddy before Court. order accordingly. The fine of Rs.
Hence, this appeal before 1,000 will stand.
Supreme Court.

107 Sunderlal v. The State of Appellant was convicted of the Appeal dismissed and the court
. Madhya Pradesh. offences under Section 394 was of the opinion that the
and Section 323 but was conclusion reached by the High
[AIR 1954 SC 28] acquitted of the offence under Court in regard to the accused
Section 302. The accused having committed the offence
(Decided on :- 13-11-1952) appealed against this under Section 302 was correct and
conviction of his by the the accused was rightly convicted
learned Sessions Judge and of the same. The circumstantial
the Government appealed evidence, therefore, was sufficient
against his acquittal under to hold the accused responsible for
Section 302. The High Court the murder of the deceased and
confirmed the conviction of even apart from the medical
the accused under Section evidence in regard to strangulation
394 but set aside the there is not the slightest doubt that
conviction under Section 323, it was the accused & the accused
held that the accused was alone who was responsible for
guilty of the offence under bringing about the death of the
Section 302 and sentenced deceased.
him to death. This appeal was
thereupon filed by the
accused as of right under the
Constitution against that
conviction of his by the High
Court under Section 302 and
the sentence of death.

Page 56 of 62
108 Magga & Another v. State of Appellants were convicted Appeal was allowed and the
. Rajasthan. under section 302 of the conviction and the sentence was
Indian Penal Code and were quashed with an order for retrial by
[AIR 1953 SC 174] sentenced to death. High the Sessions Judge. It was held
Court confirmed their that the trial conducted was not as
conviction and upheld their per the prescribed procedure of the
(Decided on :- 16-02-1953) sentence. Hence, this appeal code and was not in accordance
was made to the Supreme with the law and hence in such
Court. circumstances the retrial of the
case would be in interest of justice.
109 Trimbak v. The State of Appeal against conviction for Conviction and the sentence was
. Madhya Pradesh. offence under Section 411 for set aside. It was held that the
dishonestly receiving stolen prosecution failed to prove that
[AIR 1954 SC 39] property. Appellant was ornaments said to belonging to the
acquitted by Magistrate for complainant were either in
(Decided on :- 12-03-1953) offence under Section 395 but possession of the appellant or that
was convicted by the High he had the knowledge that they
Court for an offence under were stolen articles. No reason to
section 411 of the penal code convict appellant for offence under
and was sentenced to nine Section 411 when he was acquitted
months rigorous of offence under Section 395 and
imprisonment. Hence this hence the conviction and the
appeal was preferred. sentence must be set aside.
110 K.Damodaran v. The State Appellant was convicted Appeal dismissed and it was held
of Travancore – Cochin. under Sections 389, 400, 448 that, prime witnesses was induced
and 104 of Cochin Penal Code to handover the cheques by the
[AIR 1953 SC 462] corresponding to Sections representation of appellant that he
409, 420, 468 and 108 of IPC had purchased the oil and made
(Decided on :- 20-03-1953) for dishonestly inducing X to payment to the seller as shown in
deliver to the appellant the documents produced by him
certain amount which was the and thus the conviction of
property of Government and appellant justified. In the
for dishonestly inducing X to circumstances and for the reasons

Page 57 of 62
 deliver the certain amount to noted above there can be no escape
him and sentenced to from the conclusion that the
rigorous imprisonment for the conviction of the appellant was
term of 18 years. High Court well-founded. At the same time
confirmed the sentence and there is strong indication, on the
conviction and thus this evidence on record, that there were
appeal was preferred to this other and perhaps bigger persons
court. involved in the fraud that was
perpetrated on the Government.
The circumstance that such
persons have not been brought to
book certainly does not excuse or
exonerate the appellant from his
guilt which has been established
beyond reasonable doubt, but,
nevertheless, it has a bearing on
the question of sentence and thus
sentence was limited to period of
imprisonment already undergone.
111 Kutuhal Yadav v. State of Appellant was convicted of the Appeal dismissed and the decision
Bihar. offence under section 302, of the High Court was upheld. It
201 and 511 of the Indian was stated that the prosecution
[AIR 1954 SC 720] penal code and was awarded succeeded in establishing the guilt
sentence of death. High Court of the appellant and thus the case
upon appeal confirmed his was proven beyond any reasonable
(Decided on :- 13-01-1954) conviction and sentence and doubt. The court stated that as per
thus this appeal was the evidences produced and
preferred against the verdict version of the witnesses the High
of the High Court. court was right in convicting the
appellant. Also, the conduct of the
appellant was far beyond
reasonable doubt.

Page 58 of 62
112 Eradu & Others v. State of Appellants were convicted for Appeal allowed and the conviction
Hyderabad. the offence under section 302 and the sentence of the appellant
and 243 of the Indian Penal was set aside. Also, there was no
(Decided on :- 19-01-1953) Code and were sentenced to evidence at all of any further
the punishment of movements of appellants nor there
transportation for life and the was anything to connect them with
High court upon appeal crime even, the circumstances
confirmed their sentences. were not enough to convict
Thus this appeal to the appellants for offence under
Supreme Court. Section 302.
114 Surjan & Others v. State of This is an appeal by special Appeal Dismissed with respect to
Rajasthan. leave against the judgment of appellant no.1 and allowed for
the High Court of Rajasthan, others. No sufficient reason for the
[AIR 1956 SC 425] whereby a number of accused High Court to interfere with the
who were acquitted by the acquittal of the appellant in respect
(Decided on :- 01-11-1955) Sessions Judge at the trial of murderous assault by him. It
were convicted and sentenced was held that, conviction of
on appeal by the High Court. appellant No. 1 under section 304
In addition, the High Court and sentence of ten years of
while confirming the rigorous imprisonment cannot be
conviction of another accused maintained. Thus, appeal
(Surjan) under Section 323, dismissed except with regard to
Penal Code convicted him also appellant No. 1.
under Section 304, Penal
Code and sentenced him
therefore to ten years'
rigorous imprisonment.
Hence, this appeal was made
to the apex court.

Page 59 of 62
115 Laxmi Narayan Kalra v. Appellant was convicted Appeal allowed and the sentence
State of Uttar Pradesh. under section 420 of the was quashed setting aside
Indian penal code and was conviction. The court observed that
[AIR 1956 SC 544] sentenced to one year being so, there is no material on
rigorous imprisonment and which we can say that the
(Decided on :- 25-11-1955) fine of Rs.1000. Upon appeal appellant has done anything which
his conviction was confirmed brings him within Section 420 of
by the High Court, fine was the Penal Code. His conviction
upheld but sentence was under that section must
reduced to the period of accordingly be quashed.
imprisonment already served.
116 Chandi Prasad Singh v. The Appellant was convicted of the Appeal dismissed and the sentence
State of Uttar Pradesh. offence under section 409 and e and the conviction was upheld. It
477-A of the Indian Penal was finally contended before the
[AIR SC 1956 SC 149] code and as such was court that there had been no
sentenced to four years proper examination of the
(Decided on :- 07-12-1955) rigorous imprisonment. High appellant under section 342, and
court confirmed the sentence that therefore the conviction was
and conviction on appeal and illegal. This objection was not
as such this appeal was raised in the Courts below, and is
preferred to the apex court of sought to be raised in this Court by
judiciary. a supplemental proceeding. We
find no substance in this objection.
117 Sambhu Nath Mehra v. Appellant, S. N. Mehra, a Appeal allowed and the conviction
State of Ajmer. Camp Clerk in the office of the and the sentence was set aside. It
Divisional Engineer was held that no conviction could
[AIR 1956 SC 404] Telegraphs, Ajmer, has been validly rest on the material so far
convicted of offences under produced and it would savor of
(Decided on :- 12-03-1956) section 420 of the Indian harassment to allow the
Penal Code and section 5(2) of continuance of such a trial without
the Prevention of Corruption the slightest indication that there
Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947). He is additional evidence available
was sentenced to two years' which could not have been

Page 60 of 62
 rigorous imprisonment and a discovered and produced with the
fine of Rs. 100 on each count. exercise of diligence at the earlier
His conviction was upheld by stages.
the High Court and hence this
appeal was preferred.

118 Vemireddy Satyanarayan Appellants were alleged Appeal was dismissed and the
Reddy and Three Ors v. The communists who were sentence and the conviction was
State of Hyderabad. convicted for the offence of upheld. It was stated that ample
murder of one congress material existed on record to prove
[AIR 1956 SC 379] activist. They were convicted the case beyond any existence of
and sentenced to death by the doubt. It was clear that the
(Decided on :- 14-03-1956) Sessions court but on appeal appellants were sole murderer of
to the High Court there the victim. For this gruesome and
sentence was reduced to revolting murder the appellants
imprisonment for life. Hence, have got only imprisonment for life
this appeal was made to the for which they must be thankful to
Hon’ble Supreme court. the difference of opinion that arose
among the learned Judges of the
High Court.
119 Basdev v. The State of Appellant was convicted for Appeal dismissed and the
Pepsu. the murder of 15 year old boy conviction and the sentence were
but since he committed the upheld. It was stated that the plea
[AIR 1956 SC 488] act in state of on part of the appellant that there
unconsciousness and that too was no intention as he was in state
(Decided on :- 17-04-1953) when he was heavily drunk as of unconsciousness does not holds
observed by the Sessions good in the light of evidences
judge, so he was sentenced to present and the version of
transportation for life. witnesses who stated that he at
that time was capable of moving
himself independently and thus
the contentions are baseless and
devoid of merit.

Page 61 of 62
120 Moseb Kaka Chowdhry alias Two appellants were Appeal dismissed and it was stated
Moseb Chowdhry and Anr. v. convicted for the offence of that there can be no doubt that
State of West Bengal. murder and as such were this is very inadequate compliance
sentenced to imprisonment of with the salutary provisions of
[AIR 1956 SC 536] ten years. High Court section 342 of the Code of Criminal
confirmed their conviction Procedure. It is regrettable that
(Decided on :- 18-04-1956) and sentence. Hence this there has occurred in this case
appeal was preferred to the such a serious lacuna in
apex court. procedure. Also the court observed
that any non-compliance in the
statutory procedure cannot be
made an issue for the first time
before the apex court. It must have
been raised before the lower courts
or at an earlier stage because such
contention if valid demands retrial
of the case which in the present
situation would not be in the
interest of justice.

Page 62 of 62