Skip to content


Rahim Bux Paramanik and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in64Ind.Cas.842
AppellantRahim Bux Paramanik and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 110, 118 - accused persons not belonging to one village--joint trial not bad in law--association. - .....who were jointly tried, eight, including six of the present petitioners, belong to one village, while the remaining two belong to a contiguous village. the fact, however, that all these accused persons do not some from one and the same village is not, in itself, sufficient for holding that they do not associate together and associate for the purpose of committing offences. from the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, we find that there is, in fact, ample evidence of association of these ten persons at various places and it is a legitimate inference from that evidence that their habitual associations in the places stated were for the purpose of concocting and committing crimes. this rule is accordingly discharged.
Judgment:

1. In this case, the seven petitioner's have been directed under the provisions of Section 113, Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 110 of the same Code, to furnish security for their good behaviour for a period of one year. These seven were tried along with three other persons, of whom two have been discharged and one has not joined either in the appeal to the lower Court or in making this application to this Court. The point taken in the Rule is that the joint trial of the petitioners was, in the circumstances of the case, bad in law. This point appears again to be based largely on the fact that, of the ten persons, who were jointly tried, eight, including six of the present petitioners, belong to one village, while the remaining two belong to a contiguous village. The fact, however, that all these accused persons do not some from one and the same village is not, in itself, sufficient for holding that they do not associate together and associate for the purpose of committing offences. From the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, we find that there is, in fact, ample evidence of association of these ten persons at various places and it is a legitimate inference from that evidence that their habitual associations in the places stated were for the purpose of concocting and committing crimes. This Rule is accordingly discharged.


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