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.

Nawabali and ors. Vs. Emperor

Nawabali and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Aug 03, 1928
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/866592

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
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code (Act XLV of 11860), Sections 100 and 302 - Person ordering his men to beat his opponents--Death caused by beating--Liability for abetment of murder. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nawabali and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Cases Referred
Ghanshyam Singh v. Emperor A.I.R.
Reported In
AIR1928Cal752,116Ind.Cas.372

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 11860), sections 100 and 302 - person ordering his men to beat his opponents--death caused by beating--liability for abetment of murder. - .....nawab ali ordered his men to beats and if the killing of hamijuddin was committed in consequence of his order to boat, nawab ali was to be held guilty of abetment of the act of killing. the sentence in the charge referred to above, by itself, may be open to misconstruction; but we have got to read that sentence bearing in mind the facts of this case and the facts are as follows : according to the case for the prosecution, the complainant ismail, who had mortgaged the land (plot no. 11.8) to nawab ali, retook possession of the same as nawab had not paid the rent due to the superior landlord. it is said that on the day of the occurrence ismail was cutting paddy of that plot when the accused with a large number of men about 40 in number came in a boat armed with lejas, lathis and ramdaos and protested against ismail's cutting of the paddy. a quarrel ensued in the course of which, under nawab ali's orders, ismail's party was attacked and assaulted, as a result of which hamijuddin and abdul majid were seriously wounded and as the result of the wounds they died. now, if, as a matter of fact, the facts were, as indicated above, then if the learned judge had said that upon nawab ali ordering his men to beat the opposite party and in consequence of which order the people who were opposed to nawab ali's party were beaten and as a result two men were killed, nawab ali would undoubtedly be held guilty of abetment of murder, then in the circumstances of this case there was and would have been nothing wrong. we are fortified in the view we take by the decision of the patna high court in the ease of ghanshyam singh v. emperor a.i.r. 1928 pat. 100, the passage with which we are concerned occurring at p. 635. that being so, we see no reason whatsoever for interfering in this appeal with the order made by the learned sessions judge.3. the result is that the appeal is dismissed.jack, j.4. i agree.

Full Judgment

C.C. Ghose, J.

1. This appeal was argued at considerable length yesterday and also to-day. Various points have been urged before us with a view to show that there are serious misdirections in the learned Judge's charge to the jury. As a matter of fact, the learned Judge's charge to the jury has been subjected to very minute criticizm; but on the fullest consideration we are unable to say that any portion of the charge can be assailed on the ground of misdirection.

2. There is, however, one point which requires consideration and it is this. It is said that as regards the appellant, Nawab Ali, who was charged under Section 302 read with Section 109 I.P.C., among other sections, the learned Judge's explanation of Section 109 was defective in this that he used language from which it might be construed that the learned Judge was of opinion that if Nawab Ali ordered his men to beats and if the killing of Hamijuddin was committed in consequence of his order to boat, Nawab Ali was to be held guilty of abetment of the act of killing. The sentence in the charge referred to above, by itself, may be open to misconstruction; but we have got to read that sentence bearing in mind the facts of this case and the facts are as follows : According to the case for the prosecution, the complainant Ismail, who had mortgaged the land (plot No. 11.8) to Nawab Ali, retook possession of the same as Nawab had not paid the rent due to the superior landlord. It is said that on the day of the occurrence Ismail was cutting paddy of that plot when the accused with a large number of men about 40 in number came in a boat armed with lejas, lathis and ramdaos and protested against Ismail's cutting of the paddy. A quarrel ensued in the course of which, under Nawab Ali's orders, Ismail's party was attacked and assaulted, as a result of which Hamijuddin and Abdul Majid were seriously wounded and as the result of the wounds they died. Now, if, as a matter of fact, the facts were, as indicated above, then if the learned Judge had said that upon Nawab Ali ordering his men to beat the opposite party and in consequence of which order the people who were opposed to Nawab Ali's party were beaten and as a result two men were killed, Nawab Ali would undoubtedly be held guilty of abetment of murder, then in the circumstances of this case there was and would have been nothing wrong. We are fortified in the view we take by the decision of the Patna High Court in the ease of Ghanshyam Singh v. Emperor A.I.R. 1928 Pat. 100, the passage with which we are concerned Occurring at p. 635. That being so, we see no reason whatsoever for interfering in this appeal with the order made by the learned Sessions Judge.

3. The result is that the appeal is dismissed.

Jack, J.

4. I agree.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial