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: Shivappa Higade

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 12, 1909
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/809473

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 297 - Misdirection--Sessions trial--Dacoity--Jury to be judge of facts. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Shivappa Higade

Legal References

Reported In
5Ind.Cas.935

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 297 - misdirection--sessions trial--dacoity--jury to be judge of facts. - 1. the sessions judge has seriously misdirected the jury in paragraph 20 of his charge and this in the face of what was laid down by this court in the judgment in criminal appeal no. 592 of 1905. the sessions judge told the jury there was no fores in the argument that the accused may not have foreseen and may not have intended that a dacoity should take place. the sessions judge should not have taken the matter out of the hands of the jury in this way. he should have set out the evidence bearing upon the question and left it to the jury to say what was the proper inference to be drawn from that evidence. we set aside the conviction, acquit the accused of offences under sections 395 and 109 of the indian penal code and direct his immediate release.

Full Judgment

1. The Sessions Judge has seriously misdirected the jury in paragraph 20 of his charge and this in the face of what was laid down by this Court in the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 1905. The Sessions Judge told the Jury there was no fores in the argument that the accused may not have foreseen and may not have intended that a dacoity should take place. The Sessions Judge should not have taken the matter out of the hands of the jury in this way. He should have set out the evidence bearing upon the question and left it to the jury to say what was the proper inference to be drawn from that evidence. We set aside the conviction, acquit the accused of offences under Sections 395 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and direct his immediate release.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial