Madhya Pradesh Court June 1955 Judgments
ibrahim Hussainji Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ231
ORDERDixit, J.1. The applicant Ibrahim has been. convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mhow under Section 456, I.P.C. for house trespass in order to commit criminal adultery with one Parwati the wife of Ramcharan. He has been sentenced to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default to suffer one month's imprisonment. The accused appealed unsuccessfully to the Sessions Judge Indore. Hence this revision petition.2. It is not disputed that on the night of 11-12-1952, between 11 P.M. and mid-night the applicant scaled a wall of the house where Parwati was living and entered a room where she was sleeping and that on the night of the occurrence Parwati's husband who was in the army was on duty away from Mhow. The applicant pleaded, and it has been found by both the Courts below on the evidence on record, that the applicant was on terms of intimacy with Parwatibai for over four years and that on 11-12-1952 he entered the house on the invitation of Parwa...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Govinddas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ448
ORDERDixit, J.1. The non-applicant Govinddas was found guilty by the First Class Magistrate Depalpur of an offence under Section 380, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate taking into consideration a previous conviction of the accused, sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence. In appeal the Additional Sessions Judge of Indore while maintaining the conviction reduced the sentence to four month's rigorous imprisonment on the ground that the previous conviction, on which the trial Magistrate relied, had not been proved in accordance with Section 511 Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that at the trial the prosecution did not prove the previous conviction of the applicant. But the accused in his cross-examination under Section 342 Cr. P.C. admitted the previous conviction. In this revision petition it is contended on behalf of the State that the accused could be questioned regarding the previous conviction without the same being duly proved. I am unable to accept this con...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›