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: A. Mutyalu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 03, 1912
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/795932

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 307, Jurisdiction of High Court to convict of offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860). -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: A. Mutyalu

Legal References

Cases Referred
Pattikadan Ummaru v. Emperor
Reported In
(1914)ILR37Mad236

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 307, jurisdiction of high court to convict of offence under section 326, indian penal code (act xlv of 1860). - 1. the judge has referred the case under section 307, criminal procedure code, on the ground that the evidence establishes an offence under section 326, indian penal code.2. on a consideration of the evidence and giving due weight to his opinions and that of the jury we think this is so.3. according to the view taken by this court in queen-empress v. anga valayan i.l.r. (1899) mad. 15 and king-emperor v. krishna ayyar (1901) 24 mad. 641, it would have been open to the jury in this case to have convicted the accused of an offence under section 326, indian penal code, and the same view was taken by bhashyan ayykngar, j. in pattikadan ummaru v. emperor (1903) 26 mad. 243 though benson, j. was of a different opinion. we follow these decisions and deem ourselves empowered under section 307, criminal procedure code, to convict the accused of an offence under section 326, indian penal code, which we accordingly do--and sentence him to 5 (five) years rigorous imprisonment. the stab on the abdomen was a very serious wound, which might have ended fatally.

Full Judgment

1. The Judge has referred the case under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that the evidence establishes an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code.

2. On a consideration of the evidence and giving due weight to his opinions and that of the jury we think this is so.

3. According to the view taken by this Court in Queen-Empress v. Anga Valayan I.L.R. (1899) Mad. 15 and King-Emperor v. Krishna Ayyar (1901) 24 Mad. 641, it would have been open to the jury in this case to have convicted the accused of an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and the same view was taken by Bhashyan Ayykngar, J. in Pattikadan Ummaru v. Emperor (1903) 26 Mad. 243 though BENSON, J. was of a different opinion. We follow these decisions and deem ourselves empowered under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code, to convict the accused of an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, which we accordingly do--and sentence him to 5 (five) years rigorous imprisonment. The stab on the abdomen was a very serious wound, which might have ended fatally.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial