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.

C. Kunhammad and ors. Vs. Emperor

C. Kunhammad and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 07, 1923
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/803136

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.

Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 34, - Offence committed by two or more persons--Common intention. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C. Kunhammad and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Cases Referred
Aydroos v. Emperor
Reported In
81Ind.Cas.60

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 34, - offence committed by two or more persons--common intention. - 1. the appellants before us were convicted by the special magistrate of tirur, under section 143, indian penal code, and section 126 of the railways act and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment each. the first contention of the learned vakil for the appellants is that we must set aside the conviction under section 126 of the railways act, because there is no proof as against each one of the accused that he did anything amounting to an offence under that section. he relies on aydroos v. emperor 72 ind. cas. 360 : 17 l.w. 21; (1922) m.w.n. 800; a.i.r.(1923) (m) 187 : 21 cr. l.j. 360, in support of his contention. in the first place, there is the evidence of p.w. no. 1 in this case, that specific acts had been done by each of the accused. that evidence is in general corroborated by the evidence of p.w. nos. 2 and 3. we see no reason to discredit the evidence in this case, which has been accepted by the trial judge.2. as regards the authority quoted, that case is very different from the case before us. there the charge was under section 126 of the railways act, read with section 149, indian penal code and it was held that section 149 was not properly applicable to cases under the railways act. we need not express any opinion about that case. here we have, specific evidence, as already stated, of what each accused did. even if we do not accept in detail the acts attributed to each of the accused, there can be no doubt whatever that all these five accused joinod together and acted together in removing the rails from the railway line, in tirur railway staiton. if two or more persons join in the commission of an act, which amounts to an offence and they have a common intention to do that act, they would all be equally liable for the consequences.3. the evidence given by the defence to show that they were not present at the place, where the occurrence is said to have taken place, has been very carefully analysed and considered by the lower court and we accept the.....

Full Judgment

1. The appellants before us were convicted by the Special Magistrate of Tirur, under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, and Section 126 of the Railways Act and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment each. The first contention of the learned Vakil for the appellants is that we must set aside the conviction under Section 126 of the Railways Act, because there is no proof as against each one of the accused that he did anything amounting to an offence under that section. He relies on Aydroos v. Emperor 72 Ind. Cas. 360 : 17 L.W. 21; (1922) M.W.N. 800; A.I.R.(1923) (M) 187 : 21 Cr. L.J. 360, in support of his contention. In the first place, there is the evidence of P.W. No. 1 in this case, that specific acts had been done by each of the accused. That evidence is in general corroborated by the evidence of P.W. Nos. 2 and 3. We see no reason to discredit the evidence in this case, which has been accepted by the Trial Judge.

2. As regards the authority quoted, that case is very different from the case before us. There the charge was under Section 126 of the Railways Act, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code and it was held that Section 149 was not properly applicable to cases under the Railways Act. We need not express any opinion about that case. Here we have, specific evidence, as already stated, of what each accused did. Even if we do not accept in detail the acts attributed to each of the accused, there can be no doubt whatever that all these five accused joinod together and acted together in removing the rails from the Railway line, in Tirur Railway Staiton. If two or more persons join in the commission of an act, which amounts to an offence and they have a common intention to do that act, they would all be equally liable for the consequences.

3. The evidence given by the defence to show that they were not present at the place, where the occurrence is said to have taken place, has been very carefully analysed and considered by the lower Court and we accept the conclusions that it has come to on the point. We think that the conviction under Section 126 of the Railways Act must be confirmed.

4. As regards the conviction under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, no argument has been addressed to us to show that the accused are not guilty under that section. We confirm the convictions of the accused. As regards the sentence, we think, that it is by no means excessive, considering the very serious character of the offence committed and we confirm it. The appeal is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial