Skip to content


Sengedai Vannan Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad688
AppellantSengedai Vannan
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredQueen Empress v. Venkatasami
Excerpt:
- - 88, as well as by section 686 of the merchant shipping act......british ship. a question was raised as to the jurisdiction of the lower court to try the charge. a similar question was raised in king emperor v. the chief officer of s. s. nushtari [1901] 25 bom. 636 where it was held that the court in british india, had, in a similar case, jurisdiction. that jurisdiction is conferred by section 1 of 12 and 13 victoria chap. 96, which has been made applicable to india by section 1 of 23 and 24 victoria chap. 88, as well as by section 686 of the merchant shipping act. following that decision, we hold that the lower court had jurisdiction.2. on the merits there can be no doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offences of which he has been convicted. a plea of temporary insanity has been raised with reference to section 64 of the indian penal code. the.....
Judgment:

1. The appellant has been convicted of murdering two persons and causing hurt to several others. The offences were committed on the B. I. S. N. Co's Ship 'Teesta' on his journey from Penang to Negapatam. The appellant is a British subject and the S. S. 'Teesta' is a British ship. A question was raised as to the jurisdiction of the lower Court to try the charge. A similar question was raised in King Emperor v. The Chief Officer of S. S. Nushtari [1901] 25 Bom. 636 where it was held that the Court in British India, had, in a similar case, jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is conferred by Section 1 of 12 and 13 Victoria Chap. 96, which has been made applicable to India by Section 1 of 23 and 24 Victoria Chap. 88, as well as by Section 686 of the Merchant Shipping Act. Following that decision, we hold that the lower Court had jurisdiction.

2. On the merits there can be no doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offences of which he has been convicted. A plea of temporary insanity has been raised with reference to Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code. The one thing that is clear is, that, at the time, the appellant was suffering from fever, but his temperature was only 100 and it has not been proved that he was delirious. We cannot therefore accept this plea. At the same time it is impossible that the appellant's acts were due to an attack of homicidal mania, though, as remarked in Queen Empress v. Venkatasami [1889] 12 Mad. 459 we cannot say that the evidence warrants a finding that they were. We must confirm the conviction and sentence, but direct that the evidence and this judgment be brought to the notice of His Excellency the Governor in Council in order that he may if he thinks fit reduce the sentence.


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