Mannalal Khatic vs The State on 20 September, 1966
Citation– AIR 1967 Cal 478
Date of judgement- 20 September 1966
Court-, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
Case type– Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1963
Appellant– Mannalal Khatic
Respondent– The state of calcutta
Bench- HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH ROY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. BAGCHI
Referred Section– Section 302, Section 324, Section 411-A, Section 233, Sections 234, 235, 236 and 239.
Facts of the case
(1) The accused-appellant Mannalal Khatic was put on trial for killing Gulab and wounding Dayaram with a sharp-cutting instrument during the Third Criminal Sessions of 1963 in the Original Criminal Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court in front of the Honourable Mr. Justice T. P. Mukherjee and a Special Jury. Six of the nine members of the jury decided that the accused-appellant, Mannalal Khatic, was responsible for the death of Gulab, and seven of them decided that he was responsible for hurting Dayaram with a sharp-cutting instrument. The learned Judge accepted the majority verdict of the Jury on both charges against the accused-appellant Mannalal Khatic, and convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to life in prison, as well as under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code to three years in prison, with the latter sentence to run concurrently with the former sentence.
(2) The accused-appellant appealed his conviction and sentence on both counts to the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction of this Court in accordance with Section 411-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On November 27, 1963, he was given leave to appeal in accordance with Clauses ‘b’ and ‘c’ of Subsection, the appeal was against the conviction and sentence on both charges.
Issues
whether or not the trial of the accused before the Court of Sessions on a charge of two counts of separate offences violated Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
Arguments
The amended charge is as follows, as directed by his Lordship: (1) committing the murder of one Gulab Khatik on or about the 17th day of May, 1962 at or about midnight on or about Kalikrisna Tagore Street, Calcutta by stabbing him with a knife or a dagger in violation of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; and (2) voluntarily causing hurt to one Dayaram Khatik on or about the 17th day of May, 1962 at or about midnight The accused has both counts read to him and explained to him by the court interpreter, and then his plea is taken individually for each charge. The accused has entered a plea of not guilty to all charges and insists that they should be tried.
12-13 After that, the trial got underway. Mr. Bhose, the learned Counsel standing for the accused before the Court of Sessions on the 10th day of July in 1963, pleaded for an alteration of the charges as well as a separate trial on the two charges as the trial got underway on that day. The Honourable Judge issued an order that the charges be amended in the manner that was described above, but he did not issue an order that the accused be tried separately for each of the counts.It is not possible to conclude, based on an examination of the evidence provided by the witnesses, that the alleged incidents, which were also testified to by the witnesses, had actually occurred at the time, in the manner, and at the places which were also testified to by the witnesses. Furthermore, it is not possible to conclude that in the alleged acts of the incidents that had allegedly occurred, there was a connecting link joining the accused-appellant in the commission of the two separate offences in one and the same transaction.It is not stated in the accusation that the accused is facing, which includes two counts of separate offences, that in the acts related to the conduct of the separate offences, there was the sameness of transaction. This is because the charge contains two counts of separate offences. The evidence that pertains to the purported conduct of two separate offences by the accused-appellant does not bring out any similarity of transaction in the claimed actions that pertain to the commission of the alleged two separate offences by the accused-appellant. The second line of defence was that Buddhu, Gulab’s brother, intended to get rid of Gulab because of his second wife Piyari, that Buddhu was responsible for his brother Gulab’s murder, and that Lalmohon and his friends supported Buddhu in causing Gulab’s death. This line of defence was brought up due to the fact that Buddhu had a second wife named Piyari. The additional argument that was made in defence of the accused Mannalal was that he had been wrongfully implicated due to a genuine instance of mistaken identification.
Judgement
The bench has given serious consideration to a number of the major misdirections and non-directions that constitute to misdirections that were included in the learned Judge’s charge to the jury. The bench believes that these errors led to prejudice, which in turn led to a breakdown in the administration of justice. The jury’s decision and all convictions and punishments handed down against the accused-appellant are overturned, and he or she is found not guilty of the two charges for which they were tried. Therefore, the accused-appellant should be released from custody without delay.
the appeal should was allowed and the appellant was acquitted and set at liberty by setting aside the verdict and orders of conviction and sentences passed against him, for the broad and salient reasons which my learned Brother has so clearly stated, by elaborate discussions of law firmly settled long ago by authoritative decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and of the Supreme Court, for holding that in this case joinder of the two offences, one under Section 302 I.P.C. and the other under Section 324, I.P.C. in one Head of Charge though against the same accused person, and joint trial of those two counts of Charges has been in violation of Section 233 Cr. P. C. and cannot be justified under Section 234 or 235 Cr. P. C., as neither in the charges framed prosecution said in the accusation, nor by the evidence in the case prosecution has been able to prove, that the two distinct offences, not of the same kind, were committed in the course of the same transaction; because in this case evidence in respect of one of offences haw been inadmissible and prejudicial matters let in record in relation to the other offence, if the two offences had been separately tried, as they should have been in obedience to provisions of the Code, prejudice caused thereby is obvious and has brought about failure of justice. A second failure on the part of the prosecution was to present credible evidence to show that the two events in question occurred where, when, or in the manner that the prosecution claimed they did.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that the “charge” adequately notifies the accused of all of the alleged transgressions of the law. When considering the case of Mannalal Khatic v. State (1967), the Calcutta High Court made the observation that the objective of a charge is to succinctly explain out the accusations that have been levelled against the accused as a result of the act that was done coupled with the allegations that the prosecution has against him.
REFERENCES:
https://lawyerservices.in/Mannalal-Khatic-Versus-State-of-West-Bengal-1966-09-20
written by Ashitta Arora intern under legal vidhiya.
