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.

Sheobans Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor

Sheobans Singh and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 25, 1917
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/478446

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Sections 147, 325 - Conviction under both sections--Appeal--Judge disbelieving whole of evidence, whether can convict u rider one section. - - ' Further down he repeats that 'there is no reliable evidence that there was a riot. merely because there is strong suspicion that they did in...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sheobans Singh and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1918All355(1); 42Ind.Cas.997

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 147, 325 - conviction under both sections--appeal--judge disbelieving whole of evidence, whether can convict u rider one section. - - ' further down he repeats that 'there is no reliable evidence that there was a riot. merely because there is strong suspicion that they did inflict those injuries. it would be unsafe to convict them on evidence which, according to the learned judge himself, is wholly unworthy of credit.p. c. banerji, j.1. the applicants along with several others were convicted by a magistrate under sections 147 and 325 of the indian penal code. on appeal the learned sessions judge set aside the conviction under section 147 and in the case, of the applicants confirmed the conviction under section 325. the learned judge in the coarse of his judgment says, 'there is no evidence worthy of credit on either side.' further down he repeats that 'there is no reliable evidence that there was a riot.' he thus discards the whole of the evidence adduced on behalf of the, prosecution and yet he holds the applicants to ha guilty of having caused grievous hurt to ajudhi. no, doubt ajudhi received serious injuries and so did the applicants, but from the fact of there, being injuries on the person of ajudhi it did sot follow that those injurious were indicted by the three applicants. as the learned judge disbelieves the whole of the evidence for the prosecution and he does not say that he believes any portion of it, the appellants could not be, convicted in the absence of any evidence. it is probable that they attacked ajudhi and inflicted wounds on him, but the hocused could not be convicted: merely because there is strong suspicion that they did inflict those injuries. it would be unsafe to convict them on evidence which, according to the learned judge himself, is wholly unworthy of credit. i, therefore, allow the application and setting aside the conviction of the applicants and the sentence passed on them, acquit them of the offence of which they have been convicted. the bail furnished by them is discharged.

Full Judgment

P. C. Banerji, J.

1. The applicants along with several others were convicted by a Magistrate under Sections 147 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under Section 147 and in the case, of the applicants confirmed the conviction under Section 325. The learned Judge in the coarse of his judgment says, 'there is no evidence worthy of credit on either side.' Further down he repeats that 'there is no reliable evidence that there was a riot.' He thus discards the whole of the evidence adduced on behalf of the, prosecution and yet he holds the applicants to ha guilty of having caused grievous hurt to Ajudhi. No, doubt Ajudhi received serious injuries and so did the applicants, but from the fact of there, being injuries on the person of Ajudhi it did sot follow that those injurious were indicted by the three applicants. As the learned Judge disbelieves the whole of the evidence for the prosecution and he does not say that he believes any portion of it, the appellants could not be, convicted in the absence of any evidence. It is probable that they attacked Ajudhi and inflicted wounds on him, but the Hocused could not be convicted: merely because there is strong suspicion that they did inflict those injuries. It would be unsafe to convict them on evidence which, according to the learned Judge himself, is wholly unworthy of credit. I, therefore, allow the application and setting aside the conviction of the applicants and the sentence passed on them, acquit them of the offence of which they have been convicted. The bail furnished by them is discharged.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial