Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The prosecution case was that in the evening of 25th June, 1976 the accused-appellant armed with a dao came to the house of Tenzing Lama of Along, the complainant of the case, and inflicted cut injury with the dao on the person of Pasang Lama, a minor son of the complainant. The Sub-Inspector of Police, who was in charge of Along Police Station, investigated the case and filed a charge-sheet Under Section 326 I. P. C. The learned Magistrate framed the charge against the accused-appellant Under Section 326 I. P. C., and the charge reada as follows:

That you on or about the 25th day of June, 1976 at Along voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Pasang Lama s/o Tenzing Lama of Along by means of a dao which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 326.

4. The charge was explained to the accused person and he pleaded not guilty. The Magistrate therefore recorded that regular proceedings would be taken up and fixed the case on 23rd July, 1976. The case came up for hearing on 24th August, 1976, on which date one witness namely, Tenzing Lama, the complainant was examined. From the record it is found that after the examination-in-chief of the witness Tenzing Lama, the Magistrate has recorded cross-examination as 'Nil'. On 24th August, 1976 some other prosecution witnesses were also present but the Magistrate did not examine any other witness ; he only examined the accused Jit Bahadur Chetri and the record shows the following question was put by the Magistrate and the following answer was given by the accused :

On going through the deposition of. Tenzing Lama, it is found that he did not actually see the accused-appellant causing the injury on the person of his eon with a dao. That being the position, the question that was put by the learned Magistrate to the accused was against the latter and spirit of Sub-section (1) of Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. The Magistrate put the I question as follows:

Q. On 25th June, 1976 at Along you inflicted bodily injury on the person of Pasang Lama, son of Tenzing Lama with a dao. Do you have anything to say?

14. From the deposition of Tenzing Lama, we do not find such an allegation in so many words though one may infer from the general statement made by Tenzing Lama. The Magistrate, therefore, acted illegally in framing the question as such, since Tenzing Lama did not personally see the actual infliction of the injury by the accused on his minor son. The answer of the accused to the question of the Magistrate is simply -- "I did so and now I plead guilty." Such an answer cannot be construed as pleading guilty within the meaning of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the learned Magistrate acted illegally in accepting this answer of the accused-appellant as a plea of guilty. The learned Magistrate acted contrary to law in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant when it has been specifically recorded by himself that when the charge was explained to the accused he pleaded not guilty and that a regular trial would be held.