Why was the trial called unfair in Ram Chander?

Because the Sessions Judge rebuked and threatened key witnesses, showing partisanship and creating fear, which tainted the trial’s fairness.

Can judges question witnesses in criminal trials?

Yes, to find the truth—but they must stay neutral and must not act like a prosecutor or defence counsel, nor intimidate witnesses.

Can an FIR written by someone else test a witness under Section 11?

No. A witness cannot be tested or contradicted using another person’s FIR under Section 11; the Evidence Act has specific rules for prior statements.

What was the Supreme Court’s final decision?

It set aside the conviction and acquitted Ram Chander, holding that the trial’s fairness was compromised.

What did the Court say about Section 164 statements?

If a witness says a Section 164 statement was made under police pressure, its value for credibility drops significantly.

Law Easy

02 November, 2025

251

Ram Chander v. State of Haryana (1981) — Fair Trial, Judge’s Questions & FIR under Sec. 11 | The Law Easy

CASE Fair Trial Evidence Act SC 1981

Ram Chander v. State of Haryana

Supreme Court of India • 1981 (3) SCC 191 • Criminal Trial, Evidence • Gulzar Hashmi • ~7 mins

Meta & SEO

PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-02

AUTHOR: Gulzar Hashmi

LOCATION: India

Slug: ram-chander-v-state-of-haryana

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: fair trial, judge questioning, Evidence Act Section 11 SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: witness intimidation, Section 164 CrPC, Article 136

```

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court said a criminal trial must be fair in spirit and in practice. A judge can ask questions to find the truth, but must remain neutral—no scolding, no threats, no bullying of witnesses. An FIR written by someone else cannot be used under Section 11 of the Evidence Act to test another witness’s credibility. Because the trial judge intimidated witnesses and the evidence showed pressure on statements, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted Ram Chander.

Issues

Did the Sessions Judge violate a fair trial by rebuking and threatening witnesses?
Can a judge question witnesses in a criminal trial, and within what limits?
Can an FIR authored by someone else be used under Section 11 Evidence Act to test a witness?

Rules

The presiding judge should show active, intelligent interest to discover truth, but must not act like prosecutor/defence or intimidate witnesses.
Section 11 Evidence Act cannot be used to test a witness by relying on another person’s FIR; specific provisions for contradictions/corroboration govern.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline for Ram Chander case: incident, trial, appellate steps

Allegation: Ram Chander and Mange allegedly assaulted Dunni with wooden pegs, causing death (Sec. 302/34 IPC).

Eyewitnesses: Mewa claimed injury while helping; Hari Chand and Jiwana reported seeing events; Jiwana lodged FIR later same day.

Trial Conduct: Sessions Judge rebuked and threatened Hari Chand for inconsistencies; pressure alleged regarding Mewa’s Sec. 164 statement.

Outcomes Below: Both accused convicted by trial court; High Court acquitted Mange but upheld Ram Chander’s conviction.

Supreme Court: Examined fairness, judicial conduct, and evidentiary use of another’s FIR under Section 11.

Arguments

Appellant (Ram Chander)

Trial judge’s threats created fear; witnesses were coerced—trial unfair.
Mewa’s Sec. 164 statement was police-driven; low evidentiary value.
Another person’s FIR cannot be used under Section 11 to test his credibility.

Respondent (State of Haryana)

Judge may question to seek truth; inconsistencies explained by witness conduct.
Overall evidence supported conviction despite irregularities.
FIR and statements formed a consistent chain against the accused.

Judgment

The Sessions Judge violated fair-trial standards by rebuking, threatening, and pressurising witnesses.
Judicial questioning must be neutral, not prosecutorial or bullying.
Another’s FIR cannot be used under Section 11 to contradict or corroborate a witness.
Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence; Ram Chander was acquitted (Art. 136).

Ratio

A judge’s active role is bounded by neutrality; intimidation vitiates fairness. Evidence law does not allow testing a witness using someone else’s FIR via Section 11. Where fairness collapses, the conviction cannot stand.

Why It Matters

Sets clear limits on judicial intervention during witness examination.
Protects witnesses from courtroom intimidation.
Clarifies proper use of FIR and prior statements under the Evidence Act.

Key Takeaways

Neutral Bench: Question, but don’t prosecute.
No Bullying: Rebukes and threats taint testimony.
FIR Limits: Another’s FIR cannot test a witness under Sec. 11.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “RAM = Respectful, Active, Moderate.”

Respectful: No threats or scolding of witnesses.
Active: Judge may ask questions to find truth.
Moderate: Stay neutral; don’t become a party.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Was the trial fair given the judge’s conduct, and can another’s FIR test witness credibility under Section 11?

Rule

Active but neutral judging; no intimidation. Prior statements are governed by specific Evidence Act provisions—not Section 11 via another’s FIR.

Application

Judge’s rebukes and threats showed partisanship; witness admitted police pressure on Section 164 statement; FIR use was improper.

Conclusion

Fairness failed; conviction set aside and accused acquitted under Article 136 powers.

Glossary

Fair Trial: A proceeding where the judge is neutral, procedures are proper, and witnesses aren’t threatened or coached.
Section 11 (Evidence Act): Deals with facts inconsistent with or highly probable to a fact in issue; not a shortcut for contradicting a witness using another’s FIR.
Section 164 CrPC: Statements before a magistrate; value drops if made under coercion.

FAQs

A neutral caution is permissible, but repeated threats or rebukes that cause fear cross the line and make the trial unfair.

No. Active, intelligent questioning is encouraged to reach truth—so long as the judge stays impartial and respectful.

No. Contradiction/corroboration must follow the Evidence Act’s specific sections on prior statements and authorship.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted Ram Chander due to unfair trial.

```

Comment

Nothing for now