Skip to content


In Re: Suratti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.14
AppellantIn Re: Suratti
Cases Referred(Mari Velayan v. Emperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 297 - direction to jury--failure to explain, the law to the jury--omission to explain the definition of robbery. - 1. the sessions judge has not explained to the jury what is meant by the offence of robbery.2. it has been held in this court in a case very similar to the present that under section 297 of the criminal procedure code, the judge must explain to the jury the law by which they are to be guided and that, if he fails to do so, the verdict must be set aside (mari velayan v. emperor 30 ma. 44 : 5 m.l.t. 399 : 5 cri. l.j. 78).3. following that ruling we are constrained to set aside the conviction and direct a re-trial.
Judgment:

1. The Sessions Judge has not explained to the Jury what is meant by the offence of robbery.

2. It has been held in this Court in a case very similar to the present that under Section 297 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Judge must explain to the Jury the law by which they are to be guided and that, if he fails to do so, the verdict must be set aside (Mari Velayan v. Emperor 30 MA. 44 : 5 M.L.T. 399 : 5 Cri. L.J. 78).

3. Following that ruling we are constrained to set aside the conviction and direct a re-trial.


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