CHITTARANJAN DAS versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CHITTARANJAN DAS versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

The charge did not contravene s. 222(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it provided reasonably sufficient particulars given the information available. Summary dismissal under s. 421 required no reasons, and no material misdirection occurred in the Sessions Judge's charge about corroboration or previous statements. The jury verdict was not perverse.

Parties
Appellant: Chittaranjan Das; Respondent: State of West Bengal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 April 1963
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment of Supreme Court After Certificate Under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Charge Framing, Jury Trial, Corroboration, Summarily Dismissed Appeal, Age Determination, Previous Statements as Evidence
Criminal Law Rape Charge Framing Jury Trial Corroboration Summarily Dismissed Appeal Age Determination Previous Statements as Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chittaranjan Das

Appellant

State of West Bengal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment of Supreme Court After Certificate Under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charge as framed contravened s. 222(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was invalid
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was justified in summarily dismissing the appeal without recording reasons under s. 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
  3. 3 The requirement and adequacy of corroboration in rape cases and evidence of the prosecutrix

Ratio Decidendi

The charge did not contravene s. 222(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it provided reasonably sufficient particulars given the information available. Summary dismissal under s. 421 required no reasons, and no material misdirection occurred in the Sessions Judge's charge about corroboration or previous statements. The jury verdict was not perverse.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to surrender to his bail bond