Judgment Case ID: 141

Judgment:
minal Appeal No. 103 of 1952. Appeal under article 134(l) (c) of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 27th October	 1952	 of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Rajasthan at Jodhpur (Wanchoo C.J. and Bapna J.) in D.B. Criminal Murder Reference No. 2 of 1952	 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 1st July	 1952	 of the Court of the Sessions Judge	 Pali	 in Criminal Original Case No. 2 of 1951. H. J. Umrigar for the appellants. Porus A. Mehta for the respondent. February 16. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J. This is an appeal under article 134(l) (c) of the Constitution of India	 by Magga and Bhagga	who have been convicted under section 302	 Indian Penal Code	 for the triple murders of Ganesh	 Gheesa and Hardas. The case relates to an incident which took place on the night between the 3rd and 4th April	 1951 Gheesa and Ganesh	 deceased	 Ratna	 Govind	 another Ganesh who is a witness in the case	 and Hardas had gone to " Imaratia " a well in village Gadwara on that night to keep watch over the crops there. Gheesa slept in one shed near the well	 while Hardas slept in another shed some distance away	 and Ratna slept in a third shed near the entrance gate. Ganesh	 deceased	 Ganesh (P. W.)	 and Govind slept on the threshing floor further away from the well. Some time after midnight Ratna woke up on hearing the cries of Gheesa. It is alleged that he then saw the two accused beating Gheesa	 accused Magga having in his hand a farsi and accused Bhagga having a katari and an axe. Hardas	 who woke up on hearing the cries	 rushed to the aid of Gheesa and thereupon the two accused	 Magga and Bhagga	 fell upon him and attacked him with farsi and axe. Ratna 975 ran away and hid himself near the well. On an alarm being raised	 one Krishna who was working on a nearby well came and witnessed the attack on Hardas. The accused	 after finishing Gheesa and Hardas went to the threshing floor where Ganesh	 deceased	 was sleeping. There Magga asked Bhagga to hit Ganesh with the axe and Bhagga immediately hit Ganesh with the axe and he fell down. Thereafter Magga hit Ganesh two or three times with the farsi on the legs and Bhagga cut the neck of Ganesh with the katari. Govind (P.W.) entreated on behalf of Ganesh but he was threatened and was told	 that if he did not keep quiet he would also be killed. Without injuring Govind and Ganesh (P.Ws.) the accused then left the place. Information of the incident was carried to the village by Ratna and a report of it was made to the police at 11 30 a.m. on 4th April	 1951. In the report it was stated that " Bhagga and Magga are standing at their house with swords and are saying that they would kill more persons. Village people are surrounding them outside the house ". The sub inspector of police	 when he arrived at the village	 found the house of the accused surrounded by the village people. The door of the house was closed from inside and the accused were standing on the chabutra inside. Magga had a farsi in his hand and Bhagga had an unsheathed sword. The sub inspector got the door opened	 arrested the accused	 and took possession of the farsi and the sword. He also recovered the axe and a katari which were bloodstained. The clothes of the accused were also taken possession of after the arrest and they appeared to have bloodstains on them. The accused pleaded not guilty. They admitted their partnership in cultivation at " Imaratia " well with the deceased but denied that any quarrel took place between them and the other partners about the cutting of the crop. They also denied that they had gone to the well armed with various weapons and had committed the murder of Gheesa	 Hardas and Ganesh. The sessions judge on the evidence led by the prosecution felt satisfied that the prosecution case was 976 proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It was held that the murder was brutal and advantage had been taken of the persons who were sleeping to kill them. In the result the appellants were convicted under section 302	 Indian Penal Code	 and sentenced to death. The sentence of death passed on them by the sessions judge was confirmed by the High Court after examining the evidence afresh. In the High Court a contention was raised that the whole trial was vitiated inasmuch as it had not been conducted in accordance with procedure prescribed by law. This contention was negatived on the ground that the irregularities committed in the course of the trial were such as were cured by the pro visions of section 537	 Criminal Procedure Code. As the objection raised concerned the validity of the trial the case was certified as a fit one for appeal to this Court. The facts which concern the validity of the trial	 shortly stated	 are these: The trial began on 22nd March	 1952. Three assessors had been summoned for that date. Of these two were present while the third did not come. Thereupon one person who was present in the court premises and whose name was in the list of assessors but who had not been summoned in the manner prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure was chosen as an assessor. The trial then began with the three assessors so chosen	 viz.	 Jethmal	 Balkrishna and Asharam. On the 6th June	 1952	 Jethmal	 one of the assessors absented himself and for some reason	 which is not clear from the record	 one Chimniram was asked to sit in place of Jethmal as an assessor with the result that on the 6th June	 1952	 there were three assessors	 viz.	 Balkrishna and Asharam	 who had been sitting from the beginning of the trial	 and Chimniram who was introduced for the first time that day. On the 23rd June also Chimniram	 Balkrishna and Asharam sat as assessors. On 27th June	 however	 Jethmal reappeared and was allowed to sit and since that date four assessors sat throughout	 viz.	 Jethmal	 Chimniram	 Balkrishna and Asharam. Eventually all these four assessors gave their opinion on the first 977 July	 1952	 when the trial came to an end. It was con tended that the trial was bad as it took place in defiance of the provisions of sections 284 and 285 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that such an illegality could not be cured by the provisions of section 537 of the Code. In order to judge of the validity of this objection it is necessary to set out the provisions of the Code relevant to this matter. Section 284 provides that	 "When the trial is to be held with the aid of assessors	 not less than three and	 if possible	 four shall be chosen from the persons summoned to act as such" . The section as it originally stood required that " two or more shall be chosen as the Judge thinks fit "	 so that there had to be a minimum of two assessors. In the year 1923	 that provision was amended so as to make a minimum of three assessors an essential requisite for a trial to be held with the aid of assessors. A trial commenced with less than three assessors is not authorised by the provisions of this section as it now stands. Therefore	 unless a case comes within the provisions of the next following section 285	 a trial held in defiance of the provisions of section 284 would not be legal. Section 285	 however	 has no application to cases where a trial is commenced with less than three assessors. [Vide Balak Singh vs Emperor (1); Sipattar Singh vs King Emperor (2)]. Section 285 provides : "(1) If in the course of a trial with the aid of assessors	 at any time before the finding	 any assessor is from any sufficient cause	 prevented from attending throughout the trial	 or absents himself	 and it is not practicable to enforce his attendance	 the trial shall proceed with the aid of the other assessor or assessors. (2)If all the assessors are prevented from attending or absent themselves	 the proceedings shall be stayed and a new trial shall be held with the aid of fresh assessors. " In cases contemplated by this section a trial commenced with the aid of three assessors can be (1) A.I.R. 1918 Pat. (2) A.I.R. 1942 All	 140. 978 continued and finished with the aid of less than three assessors. This section	 however	 does neither authorize the substitution of an assessor for an absent assessor	 nor does it authorise an addition of an assessor to the number of assessors during the course of the trial. The effect of the provisions of sections 284 and 285 is that a trial cannot be validly commenced with less than three assessors chosen in the manner prescribed by the Code	 but once validly commenced it can be continued in certain cases to a finish if some	 though not all	 of the persons originally appointed	 attend throughout the trial. If all of them do not attend	 then a fresh trial has to be held. An addition in the number of the assessors or a change or substitution in their personnel during the course of the trial is not warranted by the Code; on the other hand	 it is implicitly prohibited. The procedure prescribed by section 285(l) is not of a permissive nature. It has to be followed if the conditions prescribed are fulfilled	 and like section 285(2) it is of a mandatory character. No scope is left in these provisions for the exercise of the discretion of the judge for supplementing these provisions and for holding a trial in a manner different from the one prescribed and for conducting it with the aid of some assessors originally appointed	 and also with the aid of some others recruited during the trial. Section 309 provides that when a trial is concluded	 the court may sum up the evidence for the prosecution and defence and shall then require each of the assessors to state his opinion orally and shall record such opinions. Sub clause (2) of this section enacts that the judge shall then give judgment	 but in doing so shall not be bound to conform to the opinions of the assessors. Sections 326 and 327 enact the method and manner of summoning assessors and jurors. Section 537 provides as follows: "Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained	 no finding	 sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered under Chapter XXVII or on appeal or revision on account 979 (a)of any error	 omission or irregularity in the complaint	 summons	 warrant	 charge	 proclamation	 order	 judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code	 or. (c)of the omission to revise any list of jurors or assessors in accordance with section 324	 or (d)of any misdirection in any charge to a jury	 unless such error	 omission	 irregularity or misdirection has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. " The first objection that was taken in the High Court to the validity of the trial was that Asharam who had not been summoned as an assessor could not be appointed as such and hence it should be held that the trial commenced with a minimum of two assessors in defiance of the provisions of section 284. What happened was this: On the date fixed for the trial there was a deficiency in the number of persons who had been summoned and who appeared to act as assessors	 the court then sent for Asharam whose name was in the list of assessors and ordered him to sit as an assessor. The High Court took the view	 and we think rightly	 that the circumstance that the formality of issuing a summons was not gone through was a mere irregularity which was curable under section 537 of the Code	 as there was no failure of justice caused on account of that irregularity and that the trial on that account could not be held to be bad. This view is in accord with the decision of the Calcutta High Court in King Emperor vs Ramsidh Rai(1) with which we agree. We are constrained	 however	 to observe that the High Court did not fully appreciate the decision of the Patna High Court in Balak Singh vs Emperor(2)	 when it said that that decision held a trial bad where a person was chosen as an assessor who had not been summoned. In that case during the examination of the first witness only one qualified assessor was present in court and capable of acting as such	 the judge ordered another person who happened to be present in court but was not in the official list of assessors to act as an (1) 30 Crl. L. J . (2) A.I.R. 1918 Pat. 420. 980 assessor	 and it was held that as the trial commenced with only one assessor and not with two duly qualified assessors the trial was abortive and contrary to law. No exception could therefore be taken to the rule stated in this decision. The second objection against the validity of the trial taken before the High Court was founded on section 285. It was contended that when one of the assessors appointed absented himself the court was bound	 under section 285	 to ascertain before proceeding further with the trial whether the absence of the assessor was due to sufficient cause and whether it was practicable to enforce his attendance and that the judge in this case failed to observe this condition which alone entitled him to continue the trial with the remaining assessors and that the defect was fatal to the validity of the trial. The High Court held that though there was non compliance with the provisions of section 285 in the case	 this irregularity was cured by section 537 as it had not in fact caused failure of justice. We agree with the High Court in this conclusion. It is no doubt true that the section enjoins on the judge a duty to find whether there is a sufficient cause for the non attendance of an assessor and whether it is not practicable to enforce his attendance	 and ordinarily the proceedings must represent on their face whether this duty has been performed	 but we think that such an omission on his part does not necessarily vitiate the trial. We are further of the opinion that when a judge proceeds with a trial in the absence of one or two of the assessors with the aid of the remaining assessor or assessors	 it may be presumed that he has done so because he was satisfied that it was not practicable to enforce the attendance of the absent assessor or assessors and that there was sufficient cause for his or their non attendance. If	 however	 there is evidence to a contrary effect	 the matter maybe different. Failure to record an order indicating the reasons for proceeding with the trial with the aid of the remaining assessors can at best be an irregularity or an omission which must be held to 981 be such as to come within the reach of section 537 unless it has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. It could not be seriously argued that such an omission can lead to such a result. Finally the learned counsel contended	 also relying on section 285	 that the sessions judge had no jurisdiction or power to substitute an assessor or to reinstate the absent assessor	 or to add to the number of assessors. When the point was raised before the High Court	 it fully realized that there was no provision in law which permitted such substitution of an absent assessor by another assessor or the subsequent reinstatement of an absent assessor as bad been done in this case. It	 however	 felt that the irregularity was of the same nature as noncompliance with the provisions of section 285	 and as such was cured by section 537 of the Code. In regard to the addition of an assessor during the trial it said: " We have not been able to find any reported case where an assessor had been added in the middle of the trial as has been done by the learned judge. That is perhaps due to the fact that no judge ever did such an obviously silly thing	 but considering that the trial	 in any case	 continued with the aid of two assessors who were there throughout	 there was	 in our opinion	 substantial compliance with the mode of trial provided in the Code and the irregularity committed by the addition of Chimniram in June	 1952	 is curable under section 537 as it did not occasion any failure of justice. The sessions judge was still the court of competent jurisdiction to try the case and all that he did was to add unnecessarily one more assessor to advise him when he had no business to do so. We can ignore his presence altogether and as the irregularity has not caused failure of justice	 the trial will not be vitiated". In our judgment	 the High Court was in error in this view. The sessions judge during the progress of the trial not only made a change in the personnel of the assessors originally appointed and also added to their number	 but he. actually took the opinions 127 982 of all the four assessors as required by the provisions of section 309 of the Code	 and acted in accordance with those opinions in convicting the two appellants. It is plain that a unanimous verdict of four assessors is bound to weigh much more with a judge than the opinion of two persons. We have not been able to understand how the High Court could ignore the presence of assessors altogether who had given their opinions and which opinions had been accepted by the judge. The opinion of an assessor is exercised in the judicial function imposed upon him by law	 and the judge is bound to take it into consideration and he cannot dispense with it. The judge considered this trial as if lie had commenced it with the aid of four assessors	 and taking into consideration their opinion	 he convicted the appellants. It is difficult to assess the value which the judge gave to the opinions of the assessors at the time of arriving at his finding and the High Court was in error in thinking that it did no harm and caused no prejudice. We cannot subscribe to the view of the High Court that the trial should be taken as having been conducted with the aid of the two assessors as sanctioned by section 285	 Criminal Procedure Code. That is not what actually happened. It is difficult to convert a trial held partly with the aid of three assessors and partly with the aid of four assessors into one held with the aid of two assessors only. At no stage was the trial held with the aid of two assessors only. The third substituted assessor attended a part of the trial and the added fourth assessor also attended a part of it. None of these two were present throughout. Thus the trial when it concluded was a different trial from the one which was commenced under the provisions of section 284	 Criminal Procedure Code. To a situation like this we think section 537 cannot be called in aid. Such a trial is not known to the Code and it seems implicitly prohibited by the provisions of sections 284 and 285. What happened in this case cannot be described as a mere error	 omission or irregularity in the course of the trial. It is much more serious	 It 983 amounts to holding a trial in violation of the provisions of the Code and goes to the root of the matter and the illegality is of a character that it vitiates the whole proceedings. As observed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Subramania lyer vs King Emperor( ')	 disobedience to an express provision as to a mode of trial cannot be regarded as a mere irregularity. In Abdul Rahman vs King Emperor (2)	 the distinction between cases which fall within the rule of section 537 and those which are outside it was pointed out by Lord Phillimore. There it was said that the distinction between Suubramania Iyer 's case (1) and that case in which there was an irregularity in complying with the provisions of section 360 of the Code was fairly obvious. In Subramania Iyer 's case(1) the procedure adopted was one which the Code positively prohibits and it was possible that it might have worked actual injustice	 to the accused but that the error in not reading the statements of witnesses to them was of a different character	 and such an omission was not fatal. In Pulukurti Kotayya vs King Emperor(3) their Lordships again examined this question. That was a case where there had been a breach of the provisions of section 162	 Criminal Procedure Code	 and it was held that in the peculiar circumstances of that case it had not prejudiced the accused and the case therefore fell under section 537 and that the trial was valid notwith standing the breach of section 162. Sir John Beaumont in delivering the decision of the Board made the following observations which bring out the distinction between the two sets of cases: There are	 no doubt	 authorities in India which lend some support to Mr. Pritt 's contention	 and reference may be made to Tirkha vs Nanak (4)	 in which the court expressed the view that section 537	 Criminal Procedure Code	 applied only to errors of procedure arising out of mere inadvertence	 and not to cases of disregard of	 or disobedience to	 mandatory provisions of the Code	 and to In re Madura Muthu (1) (1901) 28 l.A. 257. (3) (1947) 74 I.A. 65. (2) (1927) 54 I.A. 96. (4) All 475. 984 Vannian(1)	 in which the view was expressed that any failure to examine the accused under section 342	 Criminal Procedure Code	 was fatal to the validity of the trial	 and could not be cured under section 537. In their Lordships ' opinion	 this argument is based on too narrow a view of the operation of section 537. When a trial is conducted in a manner different from that prescribed by the Code [as in Subramania lyer 's case(2)]	 the trial is bad	 and no question of curing an irregularity arises: but if the trial is conducted sub stantially in the manner prescribed by the Code	 but some irregularity occurs in the course of such conduct	 the irregularity can be cured under section 537	 and none the less so because the irregularity involves	 as must nearly always be the case	 a breach of one or more of the very comprehensive provisions of the Code. The distinction drawn in many of the cases in India between an illegality and an irregularity is one of degree rather than of kind. This view finds support in the decision of their Lordships ' Board in Abdul Rahman vs King Emperor( ')	 where failure to comply with section 360	 Criminal Procedure Code	 was held to be cured by sections 535 and 537. The present case falls under section 537	 and their Lordships hold the trial valid notwithstanding the breach of section 162. " In our judgment	 the trial conducted in the present case was conducted in a manner different from that prescribed by the Code and is bad and no question here arises of curing any irregularity. The Code does not authorize a trial commenced with the aid of three named assessors to be conducted and completed with the aid of four assessors. The substitution of one assessor by another and an addition to the number of assessors appointed at the commencement of the trial is not sanctioned by section 285	 Criminal Procedure Code	 nor is it authorized by section 284. On the other hand	 the language of section 285(l) read with the provisions of section 285(2) implicitly bans the holding of such a trial. It is not possible to say with any degree (1) Mad. 82o. (2) (1901) 28 I.A. 257. (3) (1927) 54 I.A. 96. 985 of certainty to what extent the opinion of the outgoing and the incoming assessors who did not attend the whole of the trial influenced the decision in the case ; but as such a trial is unknown to law	 it has to be presumed that it was illegal. Mr. Mehta for the State Government contended that under section 309(2) the opinion of assessors is not binding on the sessions judge and their presence or absence does not affect the constitution of the court and that as at this trial at least two of the assessors originally appointed sat throughout the trial it should be held that the trial was substantially a trial conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Code. The learned counsel did not go to the length of urging that a trial without the aid of any assessors whatever was a good trial under the Code. Such a contention	 if raised	 would have to be negatived in view of the clear provisions of section 284 and of sub section (2) of section 285. The appointment of at least three assessors is essential for the validity of a trial of this character at its commencement	 and once validly commenced	in certain events	 it can be validly concluded if at least one of them remains present throughout	 while others drop out; but a trial conducted in the manner in which it was done in this case is wholly outside the contemplation of the Code and it is not possible to hold that it was concluded according to the provisions of the Code. The provision in the Code that the opinion of the assessor is not binding on the sessions judge cannot lend support to the contention that the sessions judge is entitled to ignore their very existence. As already pointed out	 though he may not be bound to accept their opinions	 be is certainly bound to take them into consideration. The weight to be attached to such opinions may well vary with the number of assessors. Mr. Mehta to support his contention placed reliance on the majority decision of the Madras High Court in King Emperor vs Tirumal Reddi (1). In that case the trial continued for about seven weeks. During that (1) Mad. 986 period one of the assessors was permitted to absent himself during two whole days	 and five half days respectively	 at first	 so that he might visit his mother on her death bed	 and subsequently	 to perform the daily obsequies rendered necessary by her decease. He then resumed his seat as an assessor and continued so to act until the termination of the trial	 all the depositions recorded in his absence having been read by him on his return. At the conclusion of the trial the sessions judge invited the opinion of each assessor	 and recorded it. The opinion of each was that all the accused were guilty and the judge concurring in that opinion	 convicted. the accused. On appeal it was contended that the judge had acted contrary to law in allowing the assessor who had been absent to resume his seat as an assessor and in inviting and taking into consideration his opinion in deciding the case. It was held by the majority of the court that the finding and the sentence appealed against had been passed by a court of competent jurisdiction within the meaning of section 537 of the Code and that the defect in the trial did not affect its validity and was cured by that section as the irregularity had not in fact occasioned a failure of justice. Mr. Justice Davies took a different view. This decision was clearly given on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and is no authority in support of the view contended for by Mr. Mehta. For the reasons given above we are constrained to hold that the trial of the appellants conducted in the manner above stated was bad and the appellants have to be retried in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Code. In the result we allow this appeal	 quash tile conviction and sentence passed on the appellants	 and direct their retrial by the sessions judge in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Code. Appeal allowed Retrial ordered.

Summary:
Section 285 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits a trial commenced with the aid of three assessors to be continued and completed with the aid of less than three if during the course of the trial any assessor is prevented by sufficient cause from attending. It does not	 however	 authorise the substitution of an assessor for an absent one nor an addition to the number of assessors during the course of the trial. A	 B and C were summoned to sit as assessors for a murder trial and as C did not appear	 D who was in the list of assessors and who was present in court though not summoned	 was asked to sit as an assessor	 and the trial commenced with three assessors A:	 B and D. A absented himself during the course of	 the trial and the judge asked E to sit in place of A and proceeded with the trial for some days with B	 D and E. Later on A appeared and the trial continued till the end with the four assessors A	 B	 D and E: Held	 (i) that the mere fact that D who had not been sum moned was allowed to sit as an assessor when the trial commenced did not vitiate the trial as it	 was a mere irregularity and did not cause any failure of justice; King Emperor vs Ramsidh Rai approved. Balak Singh vs Emperor (A.I.R. 1918 Pat. 420) explained. (ii)though sub section (1) of section 285 imposes a duty on the judge to find out whether there was sufficient cause for the absence of an assessor and to consider whether it is not possible to enforce his attendance	 it should be presumed that he has done so when he proceeds with the trial in his absence and a mere omission to record reasons for proceeding with the trial without the absent assessor would not by itself vitiate the trial ; (iii) a sessions judge	 however	 has no jurisdiction to substitute another person for any assessor who absents himself during the trial or to reinstate the absent assessor when be reappears and continue the trial with four assessors when the trial commenced with three assessors	 and the trial in question was there fore illegal. 126 974 King Emperor vs Tirumal Reddi (I.L.R. distin guished.