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.

In Re: Sengodai Vannan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 03, 1927
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/778973

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
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

- - 88 as well as by Section 686 of the Merchant Shipping Act.

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Sengodai Vannan

Legal References

Cases Referred
Emperor v. The Chief Officer of S. S.
Reported In
(1927)53MLJ101

Excerpt

- - 88 as well as by section 686 of the merchant shipping act.1. the appellant has been convicted of murdering two persons and causing hurt to several others. the offences were committed on the b.i.s. n.co.'s ship 'teesta' on his journey from penang to negapatam. the appellant is a british subject and the s. s. 'teesta' is a british ship. a question was raised as to the jurisdiction of the lower court to try the charge. a similar question was raised in king-emperor v. the chief officer of s. s. 'musktari' i.l.r. (1901) b 336 where it was held that the court in british india had, in a similar case, jurisdiction. that jurisdiction is conferred by section 1 of 12 and 13 vic. c. 96, which has been made applicable to india by section 1 of 23 and 24 vic. c. 88 as well as by section 686 of the merchant shipping act. following that decision, we hold that the lower court had jurisdiction.2. on the merits there can be no doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offences of which he has been convicted. a plea of temporary insanity has been raised with reference to section 84 of the indian penal code. the one thing that is clear is that, at the time, the appellant was suffering from fever, but his temperature was only about 100 degrees and it has not been proved that he was delirious. we cannot therefore accept this plea. at the same time it is possible that the appellant's acts were due to an attack of homicidal mania, though, as remarked in queen-empress venkatasami i.l.r. (1889) m 459, we cannot say that the evidence warrants a finding that they were. we must confirm the conviction and sentence, but direct that the evidence and this judgment be brought to the notice of his excellency the governor in council in order that he may, if he thinks fit, reduce the sentence.

Full Judgment

1. The appellant has been convicted of murdering two persons and causing hurt to several others. The offences were committed on the B.I.S. N.Co.'s ship 'Teesta' on his journey from Penang to Negapatam. The appellant is a British subject and the S. S. 'Teesta' is a British ship. A question was raised as to the jurisdiction of the Lower Court to try the charge. A similar question was raised in King-Emperor v. The Chief Officer of S. S. 'Musktari' I.L.R. (1901) B 336 where it was held that the Court in British India had, in a similar case, jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is conferred by Section 1 of 12 and 13 Vic. c. 96, which has been made applicable to India by Section 1 of 23 and 24 Vic. c. 88 as well as by Section 686 of the Merchant Shipping Act. Following that decision, we hold that the Lower Court had jurisdiction.

2. On the merits there can be no doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offences of which he has been convicted. A plea of temporary insanity has been raised with reference to Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The one thing that is clear is that, at the time, the appellant was suffering from fever, but his temperature was only about 100 degrees and it has not been proved that he was delirious. We cannot therefore accept this plea. At the same time it is possible that the appellant's acts were due to an attack of homicidal mania, though, as remarked in Queen-Empress Venkatasami I.L.R. (1889) M 459, we cannot say that the evidence warrants a finding that they were. We must confirm the conviction and sentence, but direct that the evidence and this judgment be brought to the notice of His Excellency the Governor in Council in order that he may, if he thinks fit, reduce the sentence.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial