Emperor Vs. Keramat Sirdar

Emperor vs Keramat Sirdar

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 06, 1911

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/852473

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/852473
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Carnduff, J.
Decided On: Feb 06, 1911
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Confession - Joint trial--Plea of guilty by co-accused--Acceptance of plea by the Court and removal of co-accused from the dock--Trial of remaining prisoner alone--Admissibility of confession of co-accused against prisoner on trial--Evidence Act (I of 1872) Section 30. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Keramat Sirdar

Legal References

Cases Referred: Empress v. Pahuji
Reported In: (1911)ILR38Cal446

Excerpt

confession - joint trial--plea of guilty by co-accused--acceptance of plea by the court and removal of co-accused from the dock--trial of remaining prisoner alone--admissibility of confession of co-accused against prisoner on trial--evidence act (i of 1872) section 30. - carnduff, j.1. in this case five persons were placed before me in the dock, all charged with dacoity. four of them pleaded guilty, while the fifth pleaded not guilty. i recorded the former plea and indicated my acceptance of it by directing that, in accordance with my usual practice, the accused be brought up for sentence at the end of the sessions. the fifth is now on his trial alone, and the question has been raised whether certain statements made by the others can now be proved and taken into consideration against him under section 30 of the evidence act. taking the same view as was taken in queen-empress v. pahuji (1894) i.l.r. 19 bom. 195, i am of opinion that this cannot be allowed.2. at the close of the trial of keramat, who was found guilty by the jury, his lordship directed the other prisoners to be brought up, and sentenced all the five accused to various terms of rigorous imprisonment.

Full Judgment

Carnduff, J.

1. In this case five persons were placed before me in the dock, all charged with dacoity. Four of them pleaded guilty, while the fifth pleaded not guilty. I recorded the former plea and indicated my acceptance of it by directing that, in accordance with my usual practice, the accused be brought up for sentence at the end of the Sessions. The fifth is now on his trial alone, and the question has been raised whether certain statements made by the others can now be proved and taken into consideration against him under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. Taking the same view as was taken in Queen-Empress v. Pahuji (1894) I.L.R. 19 Bom. 195, I am of opinion that this cannot be allowed.

2. At the close of the trial of Keramat, who was found guilty by the Jury, his Lordship directed the other prisoners to be brought up, and sentenced all the five accused to various terms of rigorous imprisonment.

Same Parties Emperor vs Keramat Sirdar Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Carnduff, J.

Criminal not guilty Has been Be all