Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 752 (MP)

Gauri Shankar Ramanna v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2008-06-23

R.C.MISHRA

body2008
Judgement These revisions are interrelated as directed against the order-dated 06.12.2007 passed by Eleventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No. 292/ 2007, whereby while dismissing the petitioners' application, under Sections 227 and 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code), the learned trial Judge had charged them with the offences under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 149 and 201 of the IPC. 2. In the first revision, registered as Cri. Revision No.36/2008, legality and propriety of the part of the impugned order concerning framing of charges have been called in question whereas the Second Revision, numbered as Cri. Revision No.37/2008, is directed against the other part of the order whereby the application, under Sections 227 and 395 of the Code, was rejected. 3. The petitioners and co-accused P. Shaija, the wife of Gopal Rao (since deceased), stand prosecuted for the offences of murder of Gopal Rao in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy and also in furtherance of their common object and for causing disappearance of evidence of murder. All the accused/petitioners are the residents of various places falling in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 4. In the application, alternative prayers were made for discharging the petitioners or to refer the matter to this Court for decision on the validity of the investigation. According to the petitioners, no charge could be framed against them on the basis of the evidence and materials collected during investigation that was carried out in a language not understood by them. However, observing that necessary assistance of interpreters was taken by the Investigating Officer and, admittedly, three of the accused namely Satya Narayan, Suresh Prakash Reddy and P. Shaija were conversant with Hindi language, the learned trial Judge proceeded to reject the alternative prayers. Immediately thereafter, he framed the charges and after reading over and explaining the same to the petitioners in presence of their counsel, also recorded the fact in the order-sheet that they have pleaded not guilty. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while inviting attention to the fact that in all the four sheets containing the charges, the space provided for plea of the petitioners was left blank, has strenuously contended that the charges were not sustainable in law for want of compliance of the mandatory provision of sub-section (2) of Section 228 of the Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while inviting attention to the fact that in all the four sheets containing the charges, the space provided for plea of the petitioners was left blank, has strenuously contended that the charges were not sustainable in law for want of compliance of the mandatory provision of sub-section (2) of Section 228 of the Code. However, a bare perusal of the record would reveal that the learned trial Judge has considered this aspect of the matter in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Banwari v. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 1198 : (1962 (2) Cri LJ 278) wherein omission to read over and explain charges to the accused, in absence of proof of any prejudice was held to be not sufficient to vitiate the trial. Reference was also made to the decisions of this Court in State v. Tarachand Anand, AIR 1957 MP 219 ) : (1957 Cri LJ 1407) and Hamerkunwarbai v. State of M.P. 1957 Cri.L.J. 672, though related to summon cases, to the effect that it is open to an accused to take the plea of guilty or not guilty or to make necessary answers to the questions raised by the Court through his counsel. There is yet another aspect of the matter. In a case where language of the Court is not understood by the accused and he is not represented by a pleader, conversant with the language, it is the evidence only that has to be interpreted to the accused in the view of the statutory mandate under Section 279(1) of the Code. 6. It is well settled that procedural laws are designed to sub-serve the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by mere technicalities (Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 116 : (1956 Cri LJ 291) relied on). Further, the fact that the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 have signed the corresponding sheet of charge in English language is sufficient to indicate that they, not being illiterate or uneducated, are intelligent enough to understand the proceedings and realize the seriousness of the offences and the punishments prescribed therefor (Minunno Vancenzo v. State of H.P. 2006 Cri. L.J. 2339 referred to). 7. L.J. 2339 referred to). 7. Moreover, denial of charge by the petitioner No. 4 Prakash Reddy who had put his signatures in Telgu could also be deciphered from his corresponding gestures. 8. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Judge did not commit any error of jurisdiction in recording the fact in presence of the defence counsel that the petitioners had pleaded not guilty. The corresponding part of the impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference under the revisional jurisdiction. 9. Adverting to the other part of the order in question, which is the subject-matter of challenge in Cri. Revision No.37/2008, it may be observed that the prayer for making a reference to this Court, under Section 395 of the Code, was apparently misconceived in the light of the specific provisions as contained in Section 318 thereof. However, for forwarding the proceedings under this provision, the following are the preconditions : (i) The Court must be satisfied that the accused cannot be made to understand the proceedings. (ii) Proceedings must result in a conviction. (See. State vs. Nooka AIR 1960 Mysore 315 : (1960 Cri LJ 1476)) 10. Accordingly, the contention that a reference, under Section 318 of the Code, ought to have been made to this Court, is apparently misconceived. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while placing reliance on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Mathai Thommen v. State AIR 1959 Kerala 241 : (1959 Cri LJ 1069) has further urged that the trial Judge may be directed to get the evidence interpreted to the petitioners in Telgu. 12. In Mathai Thommer's case (supra), the following extract from the judgment of Jackson, J. in Errappa v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Mad 186 : (1930 (31) Cri LJ 827 was quoted with approval :- "The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in my opinion was right in holding that the Code lays down that such translation should be made and with all respect I do not agree with the ruling in Hari Narayan Chandra v. Emperor. AIR 1928 Cal 27 : (1928 (29) Cri LJ 49) that paras 1 and 2, S. 361 are mutually exclusive. An accused person is often in a much better position than his pleader to follow the drift of the evidence and it is obvious that he ought to be kept informed of what is being said". 13. AIR 1928 Cal 27 : (1928 (29) Cri LJ 49) that paras 1 and 2, S. 361 are mutually exclusive. An accused person is often in a much better position than his pleader to follow the drift of the evidence and it is obvious that he ought to be kept informed of what is being said". 13. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioners are represented by local counsel, who are well versed with Hindi, the language of the Court in Madhya Pradesh. As such, it is not incumbent on the trial Judge to get any evidence given in Hindi, interpreted to the petitioners in Telgu? 14. Thus, looked at from any angle, the order in question does not suffer from any palpable error of jurisdiction. 15. Consequently, both the revisions are dismissed with the following observations :- (i) While examining the petitioners and co-accused, under Section 313 of the Code, the trial Judge shall ensure by appointing an interpreter that the question based on incriminating circumstances brought on record are clearly understood by them and shall record the corresponding answers, as translated by the interpreter in Hindi. (ii) Nothing herein contained shall preclude the trial Judge from making reference to this Court, under Section 318 of the Code, in case, he finds that the requisite conditions, as prescribed therein, are fulfilled? 16. A copy of the order be retained in the connected revision petition. Revisions dismissed. Petitions dismissed.