Skip to content


In Re: Bapu Naidu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad732(2); 31Ind.Cas.175
AppellantIn Re: Bapu Naidu and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 424 - rioting--omission to consider case of each accused separately, effect of. - t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the rule..........only by a single witness. this is not so. the alibi of 2nd accused is supported by the 2nd and 5th defence witnesses; that of 5th and 6th accused by the 4th and 5th defence witnesses; and that of 11th accused by the 1st, 5th and 6th defence witnesses, as well as 9th prosecution witness. the case of this latter accused calls for special consideration also, as he is admittedly a particular enemy of the 1st prosecution witness, and cross-examination of the latter has been directed to show that he has been impleaded falsely on that score alone. i think it must be said that the magistrate has failed to consider the question, whether the evidence regarding each individual accused is sufficient to show that he participated in the rioting.2. i, therefore, set aside the order of the joint.....
Judgment:
ORDER

William Ayling, J.

1. The judgment of the Joint Magistrate, while fairly discussing the prosecution story as a whole and giving satisfactory reasons for accepting it, has omitted to consider the case against the individual accused separately. This is very necessary in a rioting case in which 11 accused are implicated, and in which the occurrence is obviously the outcome of previously existing ill-feeling. The Magistrate has, in fact, declined to discuss the alibi evidence on the simple ground that each alibi is spoken to only by a single witness. This is not so. The alibi of 2nd accused is supported by the 2nd and 5th defence witnesses; that of 5th and 6th accused by the 4th and 5th defence witnesses; and that of 11th accused by the 1st, 5th and 6th defence witnesses, as well as 9th prosecution witness. The case of this latter accused calls for special consideration also, as he is admittedly a particular enemy of the 1st prosecution witness, and cross-examination of the latter has been directed to show that he has been impleaded falsely on that score alone. I think it must be said that the Magistrate has failed to consider the question, whether the evidence regarding each individual accused is sufficient to show that he participated in the rioting.

2. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Joint Magistrate and direct him to restore the appeal to file and dispose of it according to law, giving the parties an opportunity of addressing fresh arguments if they desire as regards the individual complicity of accused.


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