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.

Bahoru and ors. Vs. Emperor

Bahoru and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 06, 1925
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/464064

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
Allahabad
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

- - If we discard this evidence there is no reliable evidence to connect the petitioners with the kidnapping.

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bahoru and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1925All769; 87Ind.Cas.842

Excerpt

- - if we discard this evidence there is no reliable evidence to connect the petitioners with the kidnapping.mukerji, j.1. three persons, bahoru, naharya, and kehri have applied in revision against their conviction and sentence under section 363 of the indian penal code, which conviction was had in the court of a magistrate of the first class and was upheld by the learned sessions judge on appeal.2. the story for the prosecution briefly is this : a minor girl of 12 was living with her father-in-law and was removed from her home at the instance of one mt. khizani. the appellants and one sis bam were waiting for the appearance of the girl and mt. khizani had joined their company when they came out. the evidence, if believed, would, no doubt, be sufficient for conviction. but the learned sessions judge has found that there were two witnesses on the point, and they were dhara singh and tikam singh. the learned judge was not disposed to believe these witnesses because lie found that they wore relations of sis ram and were inclined to shield him. but what to the mind of the judge clinched the matter was the fact that a witness for the defence produced by sis ram swore that he saw all the three petitioners with sis ram and the kidnapped girl in a cart. it is contended, and i think rightly, that the evidence of the defence witness could not be treated as prosecution evidence against the petitioners. if we discard this evidence there is no reliable evidence to connect the petitioners with the kidnapping.2. i accept the petition, set aside the conviction and sentence, and order that the petitioners be released forthwith.

Full Judgment

Mukerji, J.

1. Three persons, Bahoru, Naharya, and Kehri have applied in revision against their conviction and sentence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, which conviction was had in the Court of a Magistrate of the First Class and was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge on appeal.

2. The story for the prosecution briefly is this : A minor girl of 12 was living with her father-in-law and was removed from her home at the instance of one Mt. Khizani. The appellants and one Sis Bam were waiting for the appearance of the girl and Mt. Khizani had joined their company when they came out. The evidence, if believed, would, no doubt, be sufficient for conviction. But the learned Sessions Judge has found that there were two witnesses on the point, and they were Dhara Singh and Tikam Singh. The learned Judge was not disposed to believe these witnesses because lie found that they wore relations of Sis Ram and were inclined to shield him. But what to the mind of the Judge clinched the matter was the fact that a witness for the defence produced by Sis Ram swore that he saw all the three petitioners with Sis Ram and the kidnapped girl in a cart. It is contended, and I think rightly, that the evidence of the defence witness could not be treated as prosecution evidence against the petitioners. If we discard this evidence there is no reliable evidence to connect the petitioners with the kidnapping.

2. I accept the petition, set aside the conviction and sentence, and order that the petitioners be released forthwith.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial