Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Motiram Hari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 123 of 1924
Judge
Reported in(1924)26BOMLR1223
AppellantEmperor
RespondentMotiram Hari
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
indian penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 401--belonging to a gang of thieves--former judgment of conviction for dacoity--admissibility of evidence.;at the trial of an accused in 1923 for the oflence of belonging to a gang of thieves, a former judgment convicting him of dacoity in 1897 is admissible in evidence. the former judgment is, however, only useful for showing that the accused is a person of criminal tendencies to theft who may be a member of the alleged gang. it by no means goes to show that he had any habit of committing thefts in the period under consideration.;emperor v. tukaram malhari (1912) 14 bom. l.r. 373 and bhona v. emperor (1911) i.l.r. 38 cal. 408, followed. - .....under the rulings of this court in emperor v. tukaram malhari : (1912)14bomlr373 and of the calcutta high court in bhona v. emperor i.l.r. (1911) cal. 408; and we see no reason to take a different view. but, as regards the weight to be attached to this piece of evidence, i think that the conviction was so long ago that it is useless except for showing that accused no. 1 is a person of criminal tendencies to theft who might be a member of the alleged gang. it certainly does not go to show that he had any habit of committing thefts in the period under consideration, for he might have reformed since he was released from jail. [the judgment then proceeded to deal with the merits of the appeal, which was dismissed.]
Judgment:

Fawcett, J.

1. [His lordship in dealing with the objection as to the admissibility of Ex. 360 observed:] As to (1), objection was taken to Exh. 360, which is a certified copy of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, dated December 16, 1897, under which accused No. 1 Motiram was convicted of dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. It is clear, however, that this evidence was admissible under the rulings of this Court in Emperor v. Tukaram Malhari : (1912)14BOMLR373 and of the Calcutta High Court in Bhona v. Emperor I.L.R. (1911) Cal. 408; and we see no reason to take a different view. But, as regards the weight to be attached to this piece of evidence, I think that the conviction was so long ago that it is useless except for showing that accused No. 1 is a person of criminal tendencies to theft who might be a member of the alleged gang. It certainly does not go to show that he had any habit of committing thefts in the period under consideration, for he might have reformed since he was released from jail. [The judgment then proceeded to deal with the merits of the appeal, which was dismissed.]


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //