Skip to content


Mandi Ghasi Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in13Ind.Cas.781
AppellantMandi Ghasi
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) - chage of dacoity--no details of offence--more than three dacoities, charge for--evidence of three other dacoities--inadmissible--evidence act (i of 1872), sections 14, 15. - .....to form the subject-matter of the trial. at the trial three different dacoities were spoken to with reference to the second count and several dacoities with respect to the third count. there was nothing to indicate to the accused which particular dacoity he was being tried for with respect to each count. there was no attempt on the part of the prosecution to show that the different dacoities spoken to with reference to the second and third counts respectively were parts of the same transaction. on this ground the conviction must be set aside. the accused cannot be charged with more than three dacoities in all. we may also point out that the learned sessions judge was wrong in supposing that evidence of other dacoities may be given to prove the conduct of the gang. such evidence.....
Judgment:

1. The conviction in this case cannot be sustained with respect to the first, count. Two witnesses were examined. The first witness does not identify the accused as one of the persons who took part in the dacoity. The 2nd witness does not prove any dacoity at all.

2. With regard to the second and third counts, the charge does not set oat the particular dacoity which was intended to form the subject-matter of the trial. At the trial three different dacoities were spoken to with reference to the second count and several dacoities with respect to the third count. There was nothing to indicate to the accused which particular dacoity he was being tried for with respect to each count. There was no attempt on the part of the prosecution to show that the different dacoities spoken to with reference to the second and third counts respectively were parts of the same transaction. On this ground the conviction must be set aside. The accused cannot be charged with more than three dacoities in all. We may also point out that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in supposing that evidence of other dacoities may be given to prove the conduct of the gang. Such evidence would not come within the purview of either section, 14 or Section 15 of the Evidence Act.

3. We set aside the conviction of the accused and direct that he be retried on such charges as the Sessions Judge may select with reference to the above observations.


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