In Re: Kamma Aswathan and

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 04, 1909

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/793870

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/793870
Court: Chennai
Judge: Munro and ;Abdur Rahim, JJ.
Decided On: Oct 04, 1909
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 297 - Jury--misdirection. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Kamma Aswathan and ;gajulu Thimmappa

Legal References

Reported In: 4Ind.Cas.1071

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 297 - jury--misdirection. - 1. the judge did not explain to the jury what is meant by theft as he was bound to do under section 297 of the criminal procedure code. further the questions which he left to the jury, viz., (1) was the 1st prisoner in the field with honest or dishonest intentions? (2) was the 2nd prisoner there and was he recognized by the witnesses who say they recognized him?, were not sufficient even if answered unfavourably to the accused to justify a conviction, for theft.2. a further question arose viz., whether the accused has dishonestly removed the chalum. we set aside the verdict of the jury and direct a re-trial according to law. the accused will remain on the bail already granted in criminal miscellaneous petition no. 190 of 1909 till the disposal of the case.

Full Judgment

1. The Judge did not explain to the jury what is meant by theft as he was bound to do under Section 297 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further the questions which he left to the jury, viz., (1) was the 1st prisoner in the field with honest or dishonest intentions? (2) was the 2nd prisoner there and Was he recognized by the witnesses who say they recognized him?, were not sufficient even if answered unfavourably to the accused to justify a conviction, for theft.

2. A further question arose viz., whether the accused has dishonestly removed the chalum. We set aside the verdict of the jury and direct a re-trial according to law. The accused will remain on the bail already granted in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 190 of 1909 till the disposal of the case.

Same Parties In Re: Kamma Aswathan and ;gajulu Thimmappa vs Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Munro and ;Abdur Rahim, JJ.

Criminal