Skip to content


Vellaya Rowther and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in14Ind.Cas.596
AppellantVellaya Rowther and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 167 - statement reduced to writing by police during investigation--dacoity trial--identification of stolen property--list of property taken by sub-inspector, admission of--misdirection to jury--re-trial. - - the evidence of indentification is, in his case, distinctly weak. the sessions judge's direction to the jury as to the value of exhibit f must have drawn their attention particularly to that document, and may very well have led to their acceptance of the identification of the cloths by prosecution witness no......regards the 2nd and 3rd accused, we find no ground for interference and we confirm their convictions and dismiss their appeal.2. as regards the 1st accused, the sessions judge has, we think, erred in admitting exhibit f in evidence. the deposition of the sub-inspector shows that it was a statement taken in the coarse of an investigation and reduced to writing (section 167 of the criminal procedure code). the writing could not, therefore, be used as evidence.3. the evidence that the cloths produced by the 1st accused, if he, in fact, produced any, were cloths stolen at the dacoity, is the principal evidence against the accused; the evidence of indentification is, in his case, distinctly weak. the sessions judge's direction to the jury as to the value of exhibit f must have drawn their.....
Judgment:

1. As regards the 2nd and 3rd accused, we find no ground for interference and we confirm their convictions and dismiss their appeal.

2. As regards the 1st accused, the Sessions Judge has, we think, erred in admitting Exhibit F in evidence. The deposition of the Sub-Inspector shows that it was a statement taken in the coarse of an investigation and reduced to writing (Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code). The writing could not, therefore, be used as evidence.

3. The evidence that the cloths produced by the 1st accused, if he, in fact, produced any, were cloths stolen at the dacoity, is the principal evidence against the accused; the evidence of indentification is, in his case, distinctly weak. The Sessions Judge's direction to the Jury as to the value of Exhibit F must have drawn their attention particularly to that document, and may very well have led to their acceptance of the identification of the cloths by Prosecution witness No. 6; it is impossible to say that it has not affected the verdict and produced a miscarriage of justice in the case of the 1st accused.

4. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the 1st accused and direct his re-trial.


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