Skip to content


Kumbhar Musa Alib Vs. State of Gujarat - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appln. No. 194 of 1964
Judge
Reported inAIR1966Guj101; 1966CriLJ542; (1965)GLR880
ActsEvidence Act, 1872 - Sections 119; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 326
AppellantKumbhar Musa Alib
RespondentState of Gujarat
Appellant Advocate B.J. Shelat, Adv.
Respondent Advocate B.R. Sompura, Asst. Govt. Pleader
Excerpt:
- - it is true that at some places, the learned sessions judge has recorded the signs as well as the interpretations, but the signs made by the witness in answer to several other questions are not recorded but only the interpretations......has recorded the signs as well as the interpretations, but the signs made by the witness in answer to several other questions are not recorded but only the interpretations. this is not a correct compliance with section 119 of the indian evidence act. this also does not enable the appellate court to know whether the interpretation of the signs is correct or not.2. the prosecution also relies on evidence that human blood was found on the axe found with the appellant. but the police constable alarakha, who took the axe to the chemical analyser, has not been examined by the prosecution.3. in view of these irregularities, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and the matter is remanded for a fresh trial.
Judgment:

1. The appellant was convicted under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch, for assaulting one Ibrahim. After the assault, he became unconscious and subsequently regained consciousness, but he lost his power of speech. His evidence was, therefore, given by signs under Section 119 of the Evidence Act. If evidence is recorded under that section, there must be a record of signs and not the interpretation of signs. It is true that at some places, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded the signs as well as the interpretations, but the signs made by the witness in answer to several other questions are not recorded but only the interpretations. This is not a correct compliance with Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act. This also does not enable the appellate Court to know whether the interpretation of the signs is correct or not.

2. The prosecution also relies on evidence that human blood was found on the axe found with the appellant. But the police constable Alarakha, who took the axe to the Chemical Analyser, has not been examined by the prosecution.

3. In view of these irregularities, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and the matter is remanded for a fresh trial.


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