Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mukharam Singh Vs. the State

Mukharam Singh vs The State

Type Court Judgment Court Guwahati Decided Feb 28, 1949
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/126237

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Guwahati
Judge
Decided On
Subject
;Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - They proved the finding of the opium with the female accused, her statement that it bad been given to her by the male accused, and the fact that she pointed out the male accused on the train.

Key legal issue
;Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mukharam Singh

Respondent

The State

Excerpt

- - they proved the finding of the opium with the female accused, her statement that it bad been given to her by the male accused, and the fact that she pointed out the male accused on the train......accused 2, mukharam singh, who was sitting in another oompartment. the woman went up to him, addressed him by name and seized him by the hair. the excise staff seized him, eearched his person and found on him a sum of rs. 40-6-0 in cash and a railway ticket from pandu to sarupathar. on this material, both the accused persons were charged under section 5 (a), assam prohibition act, 1948.3. the male accused pleaded not guilty. the female accused admitted that she was in possession of the opium and said that it had been given to her by the male accused. two witnesses were examined for the prosecution. they proved the finding of the opium with the female accused, her statement that it bad been given to her by the male accused, and the fact that she pointed out the male accused on the train. there is no other evidence in the case. it is clear, therefore, that the case against this accused rests on the uncorroborated confession of the co-accused jaukisua (koilosia ?) munia; there is no other evidence against him. it is against the consistent practice of the courts in this country to convict an accused biniply on an uncorroborated confession of a co-accrued, which cannot be chocked in any way. in our opinion, the evidence in this ease was quite insufficient to justify the conviction of the present appellant.4. the appeal is therefore, allowed; the conviction and sentence passed on the present appellant are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted. he should be set at liberty forth, with.

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal against a conviction and sentence Under Section 5(a), Assam Prohibition Act, 1948. The appellant, Mukharam Singh, and one Koilosia Nunia were jointly tried by the District Magistrate, Nowgong, on a charge Under Section 5 (a), Assam Prohibition Act 1948. The case against him was as follows.

2. On 3ist May 1948, members of the Excise Special Branch held up no, 5 Up-Train at Lumding and searched the same.) They found the female accused, Koilosia, in a third class compartment, and noticing a smell of opium near her insisted upon a search of her person, and they recovered from her person a packet containing 2 seers of opium. When the opium was seized, the woman stated that it had been given to her by a man who had persuaded her to take it with her to Sarupathar on payment of RSection 10. Thereupon she took the Excise S.I, along the train and pointed out accused 2, Mukharam Singh, who was sitting in another oompartment. The woman went up to him, addressed him by name and seized him by the hair. The Excise staff seized him, eearched his person and found on him a sum of Rs. 40-6-0 in cash and a railway ticket from Pandu to Sarupathar. On this material, both the accused persons were charged Under Section 5 (a), Assam Prohibition Act, 1948.

3. The male accused pleaded not guilty. The female accused admitted that she was in possession of the opium and said that it had been given to her by the male accused. Two witnesses were examined for the prosecution. They proved the finding of the opium with the female accused, her statement that it bad been given to her by the male accused, and the fact that she pointed out the male accused on the train. There is no other evidence in the case. It is clear, therefore, that the case against this accused rests on the uncorroborated confession of the co-accused Jaukisua (Koilosia ?) Munia; there is no other evidence against him. It is against the consistent practice of the Courts in this country to convict an accused Biniply on an uncorroborated confession of a co-accrued, which cannot be chocked in any way. In our opinion, the evidence in this ease was quite insufficient to justify the conviction of the present appellant.

4. The appeal is therefore, allowed; the conviction and sentence passed on the present appellant are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted. He should be set at liberty forth, with.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial