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: Kalli Koravan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 19, 1937
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/779371

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.

- - 1. That the offence complained of was committed there can be no doubt, but the only evidence connecting the accused with the offence was that of P. but I am justified in my opinion by the remarks of the learned Judge who admitted the appeal and who expressed a like opinion.

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Kalli Koravan

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1938Mad464; (1938)1MLJ234

Excerpt

- - 1. that the offence complained of was committed there can be no doubt, but the only evidence connecting the accused with the offence was that of p. but i am justified in my opinion by the remarks of the learned judge who admitted the appeal and who expressed a like opinion......be believed when she says that she did not know that m. os. nos. 2 to 5 were stolen when the accused pledged them with her. if she had received stolen property knowing them to be stolen, she would certainly not own it here. but however, it is for you to see how far you should discredit her evidence regarding the fact that she received the properties from the accused.if you, gentlemen, do not believe her evidence, then there is nothing to connect the accused with these properties; and you will have to find him not guilty. but, if you feel that she is speaking the truth when she says that the accused pledged the vessels with her, then in the absence, of a satisfactory explanation on the part of the accused as to how he came by them, it is open to you to find that he is guilty,in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the lower court's judgment.3. this statement, although correct, did not, i think, point out with sufficient force, the unsafety of relying on her evidence; for her position was very little different from that of an accomplice. the learned sessions judge then pointed out to the jury that the absconding of the accused was a point against him, although it appears in doubt whether he was not absconding even before the offence was committed.4. it is with some reluctance that i describe the above as a misdirection; but i am justified in my opinion by the remarks of the learned judge who admitted the appeal and who expressed a like opinion.5. the appeal is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence set aside, and the appellant ordered to be set at liberty.

Full Judgment

Horwill, J.

1. That the offence complained of was committed there can be no doubt, but the only evidence connecting the accused with the offence was that of P.W. 3, who is undoubtedly an habitual receiver of stolen property.

2. The learned Sessions Judge in charging the Jury said:

Gentlemen, the evidence of P.W. 3, which alone connects the accused with the crime, appears to show that she is not as innocent as she pretends. It is by no means unlikely that she is the receiver of the stolen property.

It is for you to see whether her evidence can be believed when she says that she did not know that M. Os. Nos. 2 to 5 were stolen when the accused pledged them with her. If she had received stolen property knowing them to be stolen, she would certainly not own it here. But however, it is for you to see how far you should discredit her evidence regarding the fact that she received the properties from the accused.

If you, Gentlemen, do not believe her evidence, then there is nothing to connect the accused with these properties; and you will have to find him not guilty. But, if you feel that she is speaking the truth when she says that the accused pledged the vessels with her, then in the absence, of a satisfactory explanation on the part of the accused as to how he came by them, it is open to you to find that he is guilty,

in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the lower Court's judgment.

3. This statement, although correct, did not, I think, point out with sufficient force, the unsafety of relying on her evidence; for her position was very little different from that of an accomplice. The learned Sessions Judge then pointed out to the Jury that the absconding of the accused was a point against him, although it appears in doubt whether he was not absconding even before the offence was committed.

4. It is with some reluctance that I describe the above as a misdirection; but I am justified in my opinion by the remarks of the learned Judge who admitted the appeal and who expressed a like opinion.

5. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence set aside, and the appellant ordered to be set at liberty.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial