Skip to content


Fateh Mohd. Jan Mohd. and ors. Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1954CriLJ288
AppellantFateh Mohd. Jan Mohd. and ors.
RespondentState
Excerpt:
- - he had been at pains to warn the jury not only that the evidence of the accomplice required corroboration in material particulars but that he was not a reliable witness......as to the weight to be attached to the evidence of witnesses on the record in a criminal case cannot be deemed to be a sufficient ground for allowing leave under article 134(1) (c) of the constitution of india and that in a charge to the jury the judge's duty is to sum up the entire material on the record and he is not called upon to give his own conclusions.4. we accordingly dismiss the application without notice to the state.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This an application under Article 134 (1)(c) of the Constitution of India for a certificate filed by 5 of the 6 persons whose appeal was dismissed by one of us on 5-3-1953. The appeal was against their convictions and sentences to 2 concurrent terms, each of 3 years rigorous Imprisonment, under Sections 395 and 120B, Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, who had accepted a unanimous verdict of the jury to the effect that they were liable under those sections.

2. The contention that the learned trial Judge had not given proper directions to the jury and that because of this they had found the applicants liable cannot succeed. He had been at pains to warn the jury not only that the evidence of the accomplice required corroboration in material particulars but that he was not a reliable witness. It was open, however, to the jury to disregard this warning and as there was some material which inculpated the accused, it was for the jury and not for the Judge to evaluate it. The learned Sessions Judge's charge to the jury was one which, as indicated, strongly favoured the accused and it cannot, therefore, be said that it was defective by reason either of misdirection or non-direction amounting to misdirection. There was also no reason to suppose that the members of the jury had not comprehended the law as laid down by him.

3. That being so, there is no reason why the applicants should be given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India. In other words, we do not consider that we should certify that the case is a fit one for appeal to that Court; and we are in agreement with the view of a Division Bench in - 'Rajaram v. State' : AIR1953All133 , to the effect that a question as to the weight to be attached to the evidence of witnesses on the record in a criminal case cannot be deemed to be a sufficient ground for allowing leave under Article 134(1) (c) of the Constitution of India and that in a charge to the jury the Judge's duty is to sum up the entire material on the record and he is not called upon to give his own conclusions.

4. We accordingly dismiss the application without notice to the State.


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