A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This Supreme Court judgment in Akhlakali Hayatalli v. The State of Bombay (1954 SCR 435) revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in the context of jury trials. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction entered by the Bombay High Court based on a reference from the Sessions Judge, which arose from a disagreement with a jury’s majority verdict of acquittal in a criminal case involving grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC. The apex court held that the Sessions Judge and the High Court must respect the jury’s verdict unless it is “perverse,” “manifestly wrong,” or “unreasonable.” Importantly, it reasserted that the jury are the sole judges of facts. The Court elaborated upon the correct approach to be adopted in Section 307 CrPC references and emphasized that the opinion of a Sessions Judge alone, when differing from the jury’s verdict, cannot substitute for their decision unless the verdict could not reasonably be reached on the evidence. This ruling safeguards the sanctity of jury trials and limits judicial overreach, thus reinstating the importance of lay adjudication within India’s criminal jurisprudence at the time.

Keywords: Jury Trials, Section 307 CrPC, Perversity in Verdict, Reasonable Body of Men, Criminal Procedure, Jury Verdict, Sessions Judge Reference, Bombay High Court, Section 326 IPC, Acquittal.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Akhlakali Hayatalli v. The State of Bombay

ii) Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1953

iii) Judgement Date
18 December 1953

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.K. Mukherjea and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.H. Bhagwati

vi) Author
Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.H. Bhagwati

vii) Citation
AIR 1954 SC 435; [1954] SCR 435

viii) Legal Provisions Involved
Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any)
None expressly overruled but clarified the principles in Ramamurthi Singh v. Emperor AIR 1946 PC 151.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Jury System

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The decision in Akhlakali Hayatalli v. The State of Bombay stands as a foundational case in interpreting the contours of jury trials in India. The judgment came at a time when the jury system was under serious reconsideration in the Indian criminal justice landscape. This appeal arose from the Bombay High Court’s intervention under Section 307 CrPC where the Sessions Judge disagreed with the jury’s majority verdict of acquittal and made a reference to the High Court. The Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirmed the sanctity of jury trials and expounded upon the limits of judicial authority in interfering with jury verdicts. It held that unless a verdict is “perverse” or “manifestly wrong,” the judge’s disagreement cannot justify overriding the jury’s factual findings. This case, thus, encapsulates the procedural tension between the jury’s fact-finding function and the judge’s supervisory role.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, Akhlakali Hayatalli, was accused of inflicting grievous injuries on Abdul Satar with a knife. The prosecution alleged that the assault occurred on a street, and the victim later identified the appellant during an identification parade conducted at the hospital. However, the identification procedure was challenged on the ground that the parade involved mostly ward boys, undermining its reliability. Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish any motive for the attack. The weapon used in the crime was never recovered. The only material evidence linking the appellant to the crime was bloodstains found on his shirt and trousers, which the appellant explained resulted from a police assault at the station after his arrest.

During the trial, the jury—comprising nine members—returned a majority verdict (six to three) in favour of acquittal. Despite this, the Sessions Judge made a reference under Section 307 CrPC to the Bombay High Court, expressing disagreement and asserting that the jury’s decision was erroneous. The High Court, accepting the reference, convicted the appellant under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him accordingly. The appellant then obtained special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the verdict of a jury, arrived at by majority, can be set aside by the High Court under Section 307 CrPC merely because the Sessions Judge disagreed with it?

ii. Whether the jury’s verdict was perverse, manifestly wrong, or against the weight of evidence?

iii. Whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant despite the jury’s verdict of acquittal?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the Sessions Judge had no authority to make a reference under Section 307 CrPC solely because he disagreed with the jury’s majority verdict. They argued that the legal threshold for making a reference required the verdict to be unreasonable or manifestly wrong. The verdict in this case, returned by a reasonable majority of the jury, was not irrational.

They emphasized that multiple prosecution witnesses had not observed the weapon with the accused. The only witness who testified to that effect—Mohamed Safi—was dropped by the prosecution and later treated as hostile. Furthermore, the failure to recover the weapon severely undermined the prosecution case. The identification parade lacked procedural integrity as it involved ward boys, thereby rendering it unreliable as corroborative evidence.

Importantly, they argued that the injuries allegedly inflicted were unsupported by motive, as the victim Abdul Satar had not mentioned any enmity in earlier depositions. He only introduced this claim during the trial, which the defence characterized as an afterthought. The bloodstains on the accused’s clothes, allegedly linking him to the crime, were also explained by a separate incident at the police station, where a constable struck him, causing his nose to bleed.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that the jury’s verdict lacked logic and was against the weight of evidence. They supported the Sessions Judge’s view that the evidence clearly implicated the appellant and no reasonable body of men could have acquitted him. They pointed to the presence of bloodstains on the appellant’s clothing, asserting that these stains corroborated the testimony of Abdul Satar.

The prosecution emphasized that Abdul Satar had identified the appellant during the identification parade. Although the identification was criticized, they argued that no specific cross-examination on this issue was conducted during trial, and thus, the objection was unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the police procedure, including the preparation of a panchnama noting the bloodstains, was presented as credible corroboration.

They contended that despite the jury’s majority verdict, the evidence established guilt, and thus the High Court rightly exercised its power under Section 307 CrPC to ensure justice.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – This provision empowers a Sessions Judge to refer a case to the High Court when he disagrees with the jury’s verdict and believes that such a reference is essential for the ends of justice.
Read more here

ii. Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Pertains to voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons.
Read more here

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The Supreme Court held that the proper approach under Section 307 CrPC had been settled in Ramamurthi Singh v. Emperor AIR 1946 PC 151. The High Court should not interfere with the jury’s verdict unless it is perverse, manifestly wrong, or against the weight of evidence. The Court reiterated that judges cannot substitute their views merely because they disagree. In this case, the jury had sufficient material to justify either a conviction or an acquittal. Since a reasonable body of men could arrive at the verdict of acquittal, the reference under Section 307 CrPC was incompetent.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i. The Court noted that the amendments under Bombay Act VI of 1952 restricted the power of the Sessions Judge to order retrials. However, this procedural change did not empower judges to override the jury’s fact-finding role. It cautioned that an expansive reading of Section 307 CrPC would erode the jury’s role and violate the accused’s right to a trial by peers.

c. GUIDELINES 

• The High Court must assess whether the verdict is unreasonable or against the weight of evidence.

• Disagreement by the judge alone is insufficient to justify a reference under Section 307 CrPC.

• The jury’s verdict should be set aside only if no reasonable body of men could have arrived at such a conclusion.

• The function of fact-finding must remain with the jury unless a miscarriage of justice is clearly demonstrated.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This decision marked a significant reaffirmation of the sanctity of the jury system in Indian criminal law. It served as a limitation on the discretion of Sessions Judges and High Courts to override jury verdicts without compelling justification. While India has since abolished jury trials in most criminal matters post the infamous K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra case, this judgment still serves as a critical exposition of how fact-finding responsibilities and judicial oversight should be balanced in a fair criminal justice system.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Ramamurthi Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1946 PC 151

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Section 307, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
ii. Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860