NDLI: Tara Singh Vs. The State

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Case Disposed Off
Headnote	Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), ss. 173 (1), 190 (1) (b), 340 (1), 342, 288-Evidence Act (1 of 1872), s. 145-Filing of second challan-Whether vitiates first report-Examination of accused-Importance of-Statements made in Committal Court then admissible. Where the report made by a police officer to · the Magistrate complies with the requirements of s. 173 ( 1) of the Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate can take cognizance of the case under s. 190 (!) (b) of the Code. The fact that a second challan was put in later would not necessarily vitiate the first and invalidate the proceedings taken before the second challan was submitted.The right conferred by s. 340 (I) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not • extend to a right in an accused person to be provided with a lawyer by the State or by the Police or by the Magistrate. That is a privilege given to him and it is his duty to ask for a lawyer if he wants to engage one, or to engage one himself, or get "his relations to engage one for him. The only duty cast on the ·Magistrate is to afford him the necessary opportunity.An accused should be properly examined under s. 342 of the Code and, if a point in the evidence is considered important against the accused and the conviction is intended to be based upon it, then it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it if he so desires. This is an important and salutary provision and should not be slurred over.It is not a proper compliance of s. 342 to read out a long string of questions and answers made in the Committal Court and ask the accused whether the statement is correct. A question of that kind is misleading. In the next place, it is not sufficient compliance to string together a long series of facts and ask the accused what he has to say about them. He must be questioned separately about each material circumstance which is intended to be used against him. Dwarkanath v. Emperor (A.LR. 1933 P. C. 124) referred to.In view of the words "subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act" witch occur in s. 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the evidence given by a witness in the Committal Court cannot be used as substantive evidence in the Sessions· Court unless the witness is confronted with those parts of his evidence which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him, even though if the only object of the prosecution is to discredit the evidence given in the Sessions Court by cross-examination him with reference to previous statements made in the Committal Court, it is not necessary to do so.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivian Bose
Neutral Citation	1951 INSC 40
Petitioner	Tara Singh
Respondent	The State
SCR	[1951] 1 S.C.R. 729
Judgement Date	1951-06-01
Case Number	14

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Tara Singh Vs. The State

Please Log-in to view this content

Babu Singh Vs. State of Punjab

D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla

M. Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka

Jai Prakash Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. Etc.

Surinder Singh @ Shingara Singh Vs. State of Punjab

State of Punjab Vs. Harjagdev Singh

Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another Vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh.

Dhuk Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Tara Singh Vs. The State

Tara Singh Vs. The State

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Babu Singh Vs. State of Punjab

D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla

M. Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka

Jai Prakash Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. Etc.

Surinder Singh @ Shingara Singh Vs. State of Punjab

State of Punjab Vs. Harjagdev Singh

Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another Vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh.

Dhuk Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Tara Singh Vs. The State