Munisami and ors. Vs. Emperor

Munisami and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 24, 1910

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/816313

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/816313
Court: Chennai
Judge: Miller, J.
Decided On: Mar 24, 1910
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 351 - Assault--Surrounding Constable in a threatening manner--Assault by one not constructively offence of all. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Munisami and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: 7Ind.Cas.416

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 351 - assault--surrounding constable in a threatening manner--assault by one not constructively offence of all. - ordermiller, j.1. the finding, that the accused, other than the second, 'surrounded the constable in a threatening attitude', is not to my mind a sufficient finding that an assault was committed by them within the meaning of section 351 of the indian penal code. it is not suggested that the assault committed by the 2nd accused was constructively the offence of all.2. as to the 2nd accused, i think on the facts found the conviction is right. the constable was in the execution of his duty at the time the blow was given. i set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the 1st, 3rd and 4th accused and confirm those passed on the 2nd accused.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Miller, J.

1. The finding, that the accused, other than the second, 'surrounded the constable in a threatening attitude', is not to my mind a sufficient finding that an assault was committed by them within the meaning of Section 351 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not suggested that the assault committed by the 2nd accused was constructively the offence of all.

2. As to the 2nd accused, I think on the facts found the conviction is right. The constable was in the execution of his duty at the time the blow was given. I set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the 1st, 3rd and 4th accused and confirm those passed on the 2nd accused.

Same Parties Munisami and ors. vs Emperor Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Miller, J.

Criminal