Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-03-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Mad484
Govinda Menon, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge of Tiruchirapalli Division in a carefully worded judgment, has found the appellant guilty of the offence of murder in that he intentionally caused the death of his wife Yasodai Ammal by stabbing her with a knife, M. O. 1, and thereby committed an offence under Section 302, Penal Code on 4th July 1949. The prosecution case is simple and lies in a narrow compass. Though the appellant and the deceased had been married about 7 or 8 years previously they had not been continuously living together. The reason ascribed for this separate living is the fact that the deceased was not well and was suffering from a very mysterious disease and therefore sometime before the date of the occurrence she had been taken away from the residence of the appellant to that of her parents where she was living at the time when she was murdered. It is stated that during the period when the deceased was living with her parents the accused occasionally used to visit he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-04-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Mad639
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of East Tanjore at Mayuratm, under Section 307 Criminal P. C., wherein the learned Judge after differing from the unanimous verdict of guilty by the jury wants the Court to accept his opinion that the accused is not guilty of any offence whatever. In his letter of reference the learned Judge has given reasons for making the reference and a perusal of the same shows that he does not agree with the opinion of the jury regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. In para. 4-the learned Judge says that it is very doubtful whether P. W. 1 knew prior to his giving the complaint on 9th January 1949 that it was the accused who committed the robbery. He goes on to state that it is also doubtful if P. W. 2 who professes to be an eye-witness was there on that afternoon. Dealing with the testimony of P. Ws. 9 and 4, the learned Judge was inclined to conclude that their evidence cannot be accepted. In short, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-18-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Mad453
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. This reference by the Sessions Judge of Goorg cannot be accepted for the following reasons. The irregularity that is said to have been committed by the Magistrate consisted in his failure to examine the accused under Section 349, Criminal P. C., after a court witness was examined. This court witness supported the defence version but the trial Court did not accept the evidence of this witness. Apparently the Magistrate did not question the accused under Section 342, Criminal P. C., as there was nothing to be explained by the accused in the evidence of the court witness who supported the defence version. So the failure to examine the accused under Section 342, in the circumstances cannot be said to have in any way prejudiced the accused. 2. In the order of reference, the learned Sessions Judge relying on the decision reported in Hooghly Chinsura Municipality v. Keshab, A. I. R. 1983 Cal. 347; (1983) Cri. L. J. 649 states that failure to comply with the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-19-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Mad462
ORDER1. The petitioners were discharged under Section 209, Criminal P. C., by the Court of first instance which was the Additional Sub-Magistrate of Tirupathur. On an application by the prosecution the learned Sessions Judge of Ramnad has set aside the order of discharge and directed the Magistrate to pursue a course of action which may best be described in the words of the learned Judge himself, and they are in the following terms ;'I allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the lower Court and direct that a charge be framed against the accused under Section 477, Penal Code.' Neither Mr. Jayarama Iyer for the respondents nor the Public Prosecutor has been able to find any provision of law in the Criminal Procedure Code which would justify a Sessions Judge directing a Magistrate who has held a preliminary enquiry to frame a charge. Section 437, Criminal P. C., provides that on finding that an accused who is exclusively triable by a Court of Session has been improperly discha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-19-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Mad503
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. Having rightly and correctly held that there are no materials for setting aside the order of discharge under Section 307, Penal Code the learned Sessions Judge, in my opinion, was not justified in ordering a farther enquiry with regard to the alleged offence under Section 323, Penal Code. The learned Judge holds that the order of the Magistrate implies a discharge with regard to Section 323. If that is so, simply because the Magistrate has not used words 'the accused is discharged under Section 323' the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of discharge.2. Moreover, the learned Judge himself concedes that the Magistrate has disbelieved the witnesses and nothing contra has been said against that procedure. I do not think that it is open to the learned Judge to bisect the order of discharge into two component parts, confirm one part and set aside the other. The order of discharge must be taken and read as a whole and as it appears that the Magi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-01-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Mad577
Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellant was convicted as a result of unanimous verdict of a jury under Section 397, Penal Code, and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge of South Arcot division. When his jail appeal was perused by our learned brother Mack J. he made the following note:'I think evidence in this case should be examined. There are some curious features about the case :(1) admission of P. W. 5 that accused was on bad terms with family;(2) identification in dark ;(3) apparent monopoly of violent activity by accused in this dacoity.Section 397 makes seven years rigorous imprisonment compulsory.'The learned Judge issued notice to the Public Prosecutor and directed that the matter may be heard by a Bench in order that the evidence may be gone into in the light of the note made by him.2. It seems to us that in view of Section 418, Criminal P. C., it is not competent to this Court to go into question of fact in an appeal against a conviction as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-01-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Mad579
Govinda Menon, J.1. The main, if not the sole, piece of evidence against the appellant is his confession made before the Stationery Sub. Magistrate and marked as Ex. P. 3 in the case. If that confession is accepted, as true, then, there can be no doubt that the deceased Govindammal was done to death by the appellant by cutting her throat by a deadly weapon. But the question is whether it is safe to act upon that document alone and find the appellant guilty of the offence.2. The appellant is a young man of 18 or 19 years of age and the deceased Govindammal was practically double his age. She was a woman possessed of some property and the appellant was employed by her as a farm servant to look after the cultivation. During the course of this service, the appellant became intimate with the deceased and stayed in the house of the deceased. Contemporaneously with the appellant's criminal intimacy the deceased was also carrying on with P. W. 5. a cooly, as spoken to by P. W. 4. The appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-14-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Mad665
Govinda Menon, J.1. The petitioners were convicted by the first class Bench Court of Salem in S. T. R. No. 189 of 1948 under Sections 448 and 426, Penal Code, and sentenced to pay fines. There was no appeal or revision against these sentences and therefore they became final and hence the merits are now beyond controversy. More than a month after the conviction, the respondent, who was the complainant, applied to the Bench Court for delivery of possession of the house, the trespass in which was the subject matter of the criminal case on the ground that the respondent had been wrongfully dispossessed by the petitioner. For the reason that the application was made more than one month after the disposal of the criminal case, the trial Court dismissed the application whereupon the respondent, by an original application as it were, applied to the Sessions Court for an order directing the delivery of possession of the house to him. The learned Sessions Judge after considering certain decision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-15-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Mad696
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This revision petition raises a question of some importance regarding the venue of trials in criminal cases. The petitioner, a communist detenu in the Central Jail, Vellore, was charged along with others for alleged offences of causing simple hurt etc. to the jail officials on 3rd August 1949 within the precincts of the said jail while the jail officials were acting in the discharge of their official duties. As many as 23 charge sheets were filed against this detenu with regard to the alleged occurrence. In pursuance of ft request by the Inspector General of Prisons, Madras, that the trial of the petitioner and the other connected cases may be held in the recreation room of the Central Jail, Vellore, to which the public can be given access, the Government agreed to the proposal and directed the trial of the abovementioned cases as suggested by the Inspector General of Prisons. The District Magistrate after obtaining the approval of the High Court, Madras, issu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-17-1950
Reported in : (1950)2MLJ370
Horwill, J.1. The respondent made an allegation against the appellant that he had caused the disappearance of a ledger from the precincts of the Court and fabricated some secondary evidence. The same allegation was put forward during the course of the suit in which the ledgers had been filed. The trial Court found against the respondent. The respondent appealed and the appeal was dismissed. The second appeal to this Court is still pending. During the course of the appeal and second appeal, the respondent filed this application, requesting the Court under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, to file a complaint against the appel ant. The Court, acting on very much the same evidence as it had in the course of the suit, concluded that the disappearance of the evidence was due to somebody acting on the part of the respondent and not of the appellant and that the secondary evidence was true. He then fore refused to file a complaint. On appeal under Section 476-B, the learned District Judge...
Tag this Judgment!