Skip to content


In Re: Boya Lingadu Alias Dubbodu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1940Mad509; (1940)1MLJ428
AppellantIn Re: Boya Lingadu Alias Dubbodu
Excerpt:
- - it can hardly be urged that the jury was not competent to decide the simple question whether the evidence regarding the production of these properties by the accused was reliable or not, and the mere fact that the opinion is one with which the learned trial judge does not agree, does not make the jury's opinion a perverse or unreasonable one......fact that the opinion is one with which the learned trial judge does not agree, does not make the jury's opinion a perverse or unreasonable one. apart from this, there is the fact that the trial itself was not according to law because the charges were wrongly joined. two distinct offences of theft in two separate houses were tried at one and the same trial, and the alternative charges under section 411, indian penal code, were also in respect of each of these transactions. in other words, there were two charges under section 411 in respect of the properties stolen from the two houses. we see no reason to accept the reference. the records are therefore returned to the sessions judge. the accused is acquitted and he should be set at liberty unless liable to be detained for some other.....
Judgment:

Pandrang Row, J.

1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Anantapur in respect of a verdict of not guilty returned by the jury on a charge of theft and in the alternative of retention of stolen property knowing it to be stolen. The case was a very simple one. The only evidence incriminating the accused was that certain articles were produced by the accused before the Police Officer, who investigated the case, and another witness. The ownership of the articles was proved by the persons in whose houses the thefts had taken place. The suggestion in the cross-examination of the Police Officer was that the articles said to have been produced by the accused were really handed over to the Police by the complainants themselves, and it is possible that the jury thought there was some truth in this suggestion. The jury's verdict was unanimous, and it cannot be said that simply because there is no reason to be found in the record for disbelieving the evidence of these two witnesses the jury's verdict must be regarded as perverse or unreasonable. The jury were entitled to form and express their own opinion as regards the reliability of these two witnesses, and one cannot exclude the possibility that they might have formed an adverse opinion on account of the demeanour of the witnesses or some other cause which does not find any mention in the record. It can hardly be urged that the jury was not competent to decide the simple question whether the evidence regarding the production of these properties by the accused was reliable or not, and the mere fact that the opinion is one with which the learned trial Judge does not agree, does not make the jury's opinion a perverse or unreasonable one. Apart from this, there is the fact that the trial itself was not according to law because the charges were wrongly joined. Two distinct offences of theft in two separate houses were tried at one and the same trial, and the alternative charges under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, were also in respect of each of these transactions. In other words, there were two charges under Section 411 in respect of the properties stolen from the two houses. We see no reason to accept the reference. The records are therefore returned to the Sessions Judge. The accused is acquitted and he should be set at liberty unless liable to be detained for some other cause.


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