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.

Kamakka Vs. Emperor

Kamakka vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 14, 1911
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/806833

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.

Statement of accused, value of - Conviction based solely on such statement. - - 1. We think the evidence of the medical witnesses establishes the fact that the child was thrown into the well. The accused in her first statement and also before the Committing Magistrate, stated that she threw the child into the wel...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kamakka

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
9Ind.Cas.790a

Excerpt

statement of accused, value of - conviction based solely on such statement. - - 1. we think the evidence of the medical witnesses establishes the fact that the child was thrown into the well. the accused in her first statement and also before the committing magistrate, stated that she threw the child into the well, bat in the first statement she said that the child had died soon after delivery and it was the dead child that she threw into the well. it seems to us that it is possible that, when the prisoner threw the child into the well, she might have thought that it was dead. the case rests really upon the admission of the accused that she threw the child into the well; she may well have been under that impression; and, if the conviction is to be based solely on a statement of her own, it is fair that that statement should be taken in its entirety, unless there is good reason to the contrary.1. we think the evidence of the medical witnesses establishes the fact that the child was thrown into the well. the accused in her first statement and also before the committing magistrate, stated that she threw the child into the well, bat in the first statement she said that the child had died soon after delivery and it was the dead child that she threw into the well. it seems to us that it is possible that, when the prisoner threw the child into the well, she might have thought that it was dead. we do not think that we can safely rely on the evidence of prosecution witness no. 2, who was examined as an approver and made contradictory statements at different stages of the case. the case rests really upon the admission of the accused that she threw the child into the well; but she says that it was dead at the time. she may well have been under that impression; and, if the conviction is to be based solely on a statement of her own, it is fair that that statement should be taken in its entirety, unless there is good reason to the contrary. the charge of murder, therefore, fails, and the accused will be acquitted of that charge. bat she is certainly guilty under section 318, indian penal code, and we convict her under that section and sentence her to rigorous imprisonment for two years.

Full Judgment

1. We think the evidence of the medical witnesses establishes the fact that the child was thrown into the well. The accused in her first statement and also before the Committing Magistrate, stated that she threw the child into the well, bat in the first statement she said that the child had died soon after delivery and it was the dead child that she threw into the well. It seems to us that it is possible that, when the prisoner threw the child into the well, she might have thought that it was dead. We do not think that we can safely rely on the evidence of Prosecution witness No. 2, who was examined as an approver and made contradictory statements at different stages of the case. The case rests really upon the admission of the accused that she threw the child into the well; but she says that it was dead at the time. She may well have been under that impression; and, if the conviction is to be based solely on a statement of her own, it is fair that that statement should be taken in its entirety, unless there is good reason to the Contrary. The charge of murder, therefore, fails, and the accused will be acquitted of that charge. Bat she is certainly guilty under Section 318, Indian Penal Code, and we convict her under that section and sentence her to rigorous imprisonment for two years.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial