Allahabad Court October 1915 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Dhani Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All49
Henry Richards, C.J. and George Knox, J.1. Dhani Ram and Chote Lal have been found guilty of the murder of Durga Prasad and sentenced to death. They have appealed. The second accused is the son of the first accused. The deceased was the only son of Sobha Ram, a brother of the first accused. The first accused had another son called Salig who died childless leaving a widow Musammafc Deo Kuuwar. On the 16th of August, 1911, Durga Prasad made a will in favour of the second accused leaving him all his property. Beyond all question Durga Prasad was most brutally murdered. Dhani Ram in the court below admitted the murder and he admits it in his petition of appeal. Chote, however, denies his guilt. The case for the prosecution is that the motive for the murder was to anticipate the succession to Durga Prasad's property and to prevent him incurring more debts, mortgaging or dealing with his property or cancelling the will.2. Their Lordships then proceeded to discuss the evidence against Dhani R...
Tag this Judgment!Sheonandan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.647
Piggott, J.1. The two appellants, Sheo Nandan and Babu Nandan, were committed for trial on charges alleging against both of them, the commission of offences punishable under Sections 380 and 201, Indian Penal Code. The charges were amended by the Sessions Judge, although under the circumstances, it does not seem to me that there is any clear reason why he should not have been content to proceed with the charges as originally framed, unless indeed, as I shall have occasion to remark presently, he was prepared to add a further charge against Sheo Nandan alone. However, in the result both the accused were convicted on the charge under Section 380, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each. Babu Nandan alone was convicted on the charge under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to a further period of rigorous imprisonment for three years. The essential facts put forward by the prosecution in this case, may be stated thus. There was in the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhani Ram and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All437; 31Ind.Cas.1005
1. Dhani Ram and Chotey Lal have been found guilty of the murder of Durga Prasad and sentenced to death. They have appealed. The second accused is the son of the first accused. The deceased was the only son of Sobha Ram, a brother of the first accused. The first accused had another son called Salig who died childless leaving a widow Musammat Deo Kunwar. On the 16th August 1911, Durga Prasad made a Will in favour of the second accused leaving him all his property. Beyond all question, Durga Prasad was most brutally murdered. Dhani Ram in the Court below admitted the murder and he admits it in his petition of appeal. Chotey, however, denies his guilt. The case for the prosecution is that the motive for the murder was to anticipate the succession to Durga Prasad's property and to prevent him incurring more debts, mortgaging or dealing with his property or cancelling the Will. Dhani Ram says that he murdered the deceased because he caught him in the act of having sexual intercourse with Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Jiban Kuar Vs. Govind Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All421
1. The following case has been stated by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of these Provinces to this Court under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act of 1899. The case stated runs as follows: On the 23rd of August 1914, one Mathura Das died childless, leaving property of the estimated value of Rs. 2,25,000. The sister of the deceased applied for Letters of Administration. Gobind Das, a collateral of Mathura Das, disputed her claim. Eventually the two claimants effected a compromise, and to give effect to this compromise both the parties executed separate instruments of even date on the 14th of September 1914. Each instrument was treated as a deed of release and was stamped with a stamp Rs. 5. The instrument executed by Gobind Das was presented for registration and was impounded by the Sub-Registrar, who considered it to be an instrument of partition chargeable with a duty of Rs. 375. The instrument was sent to the Collector, who considered it to be a release and referred the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Rup Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All481; 31Ind.Cas.817
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of the District Magistrate. It appears that there was a suit in the Small Cause Court in 1912 in which Rup Lal was plaintiff. The suit was a suit on a bond. It is alleged that the bond was a forgery. Application was made by the then District Magistrate to the Judge of the Small Cause Court for sanction to prosecute. This sanction was granted and the case was taken cognizance of by the District Magistrate, who sent it on to a Magistrate of the first class. The result of his enquiry was that the accused Rup Lal was discharged. The prosecution considered it desirable that there should be further enquiry and that the propriety of the order of the Magistrate discharging Rup Lal should be considered. The application was made to the District Magistrate. He directed Rup Lal to show cause why the order discharging him should not be set aside. Counsel appeared on behalf of Rup Lal. No exception was taken to the District ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Panchu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All185; 32Ind.Cas.136
George Knox, J.1. Read explanation furnished by the District Magistrate. It appears that in the course of a Police investigation into a charge under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, the prisoner Indrason pointed out a dhatura tree and said 'from this I took the fruit.' The fact of pointing out the dhatura tree and the words accompanying it were deposed to by the witness Ablakh. The same witness was allowed to say further: 'He (meaning the Sub-Inspector) asked Indrason who gave the gur and Indrason said he gave it. He also said I gave seed of dhatura.' The Darogha said 'where did you bring the seed.' He said 'there was a tree at Chillor Ahir's Kala.' The Darogha said 'come and point out.' All of us went.' There can be no doubt whatever that the whole of the statement above recited was inadmissible as evidence. No fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of the information said to be given by Indrason. If we take it that the fact of the dhatura tree was a discovery in consequ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›