Skip to content


In Re: Dorasami Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad1103(1); 30Ind.Cas.464
AppellantIn Re: Dorasami Aiyar
Cases ReferredBela Rani v. Mahabir Singh
Excerpt:
penal code (act xl v of 1860), section 381- evidence act (i of 1872), sections 11, 32--ownership of alleged stolen property--witness stating what a deceased person had said to him--admissibility of such statement. - order1. the only evidence as to the ownership of the property alleged to have been stolen is the 1st prosecution witness's statement as to what ranganatha tawkar, now deceased, said to him regarding it. 'we cannot being this statement within the terms of section 32, indian evidence act; and following bela rani v. mahabir singh 14 ind. cas. 116 we do not think it is admissible under section 11. in the absence of evidence as to the ownership of the property, the conviction of an offence punishable under section 381, indian penal code, cannot stand. it is set aside and the accused must be released, if in custody.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The only evidence as to the ownership of the property alleged to have been stolen is the 1st prosecution witness's statement as to what Ranganatha Tawkar, now deceased, said to him regarding it. 'We cannot being this statement within the terms of Section 32, Indian Evidence Act; and following Bela Rani v. Mahabir Singh 14 Ind. Cas. 116 we do not think it is admissible under Section 11. In the absence of evidence as to the ownership of the property, the conviction of an offence punishable under Section 381, Indian Penal Code, cannot stand. It is set aside and the accused must be released, if in custody.


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