Skip to content


Sinna Tevan Alias Sinna Karrupan Tevan and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1Ind.Cas.546
AppellantSinna Tevan Alias Sinna Karrupan Tevan and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 297 and 208 - charge to jury--misdirection--judge defining dacoity as robbery committed by more than five persons. - - 1. the point urged before us in appeal is that there is a misdirection in the charge of the sessions judge to the jury in that he did not instruct the jury with sufficient clearness that before he can find that there was a dacoity, they must be satisfied that there were at least five persons taking part in the offence, and that if any of those charged are acquitted they must be excluded in considering whether the evidence proves that the number of offenders was not less than five......charged are acquitted they must be excluded in considering whether the evidence proves that the number of offenders was not less than five.2. seven offenders were originally charged. of these one was acquitted at the former trial, two were discharged by the magistrate subsequently and one was acquitted at the present trial. but there is nothing to show that the jury took any account of these as going to make up the number of five offenders. the judge did explain the definition of dacoity and, in fact, explained it in a sense unduly favourable to the accused as regards the question of the number required to convert a robbery into a dacoity in that he told them that dacoity is robbery committed by more than five persons, whereas he should have said by five or more persons. we do not.....
Judgment:

1. The point urged before us in appeal is that there is a misdirection in the charge of the Sessions Judge to the jury in that he did not instruct the jury with sufficient clearness that before he can find that there was a dacoity, they must be satisfied that there were at least five persons taking part in the offence, and that if any of those charged are acquitted they must be excluded in considering whether the evidence proves that the number of offenders was not less than five.

2. Seven offenders were originally charged. Of these one was acquitted at the former trial, two were discharged by the Magistrate subsequently and one was acquitted at the present trial. But there is nothing to show that the jury took any account of these as going to make up the number of five offenders. The Judge did explain the definition of dacoity and, in fact, explained it in a sense unduly favourable to the accused as regards the question of the number required to convert a robbery into a dacoity in that he told them that dacoity is robbery committed by more than five persons, whereas he should have said by five or more persons. We do not think that there is any reason to hold that there is a misdirection which prejudiced the accused nor do we regard the sentences as too severe.

3. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.


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