TARA SINGH versus THE STATE

TARA SINGH versus THE STATE

Conviction and sentence are set aside due to gross disregard of section 342 and improper admission of committal court evidence under section 288 without compliance with section 145 of the Evidence Act; there is grave likelihood of prejudice, requiring retrial de novo.

Parties
Appellant: Tara Singh; Respondent: The State
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 June 1951
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Under Article 136(1) of the Constitution
Outcome
Conviction and sentence set aside; retrial de novo ordered.
Legal Topics
Murder Trial, Procedure for Police Reports (challan), Examination of Accused Under Section 342, Admissibility of Statements Under Evidence Act, Retrial Orders

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tara Singh

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Under Article 136(1) of the Constitution

  1. 1 Whether filing a second challan vitiates proceedings based on the first report under section 173(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code
  2. 2 Whether the accused was denied opportunity to be represented by counsel under section 340(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code
  3. 3 Whether section 342 was properly complied with at the committal stage

Ratio Decidendi

Conviction and sentence are set aside due to gross disregard of section 342 and improper admission of committal court evidence under section 288 without compliance with section 145 of the Evidence Act; there is grave likelihood of prejudice, requiring retrial de novo.

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence set aside; retrial de novo ordered.

Orders

  • Retrial de novo in Sessions Court either by same or other Sessions Judge.
  • Committal treated as good.