Skip to content


Sahorali Molla Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subjectcriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Cal1120,87Ind.Cas.103
AppellantSahorali Molla
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
- .....with and accepted it, and convicted the appellant under section 376, i.p.c. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of rs. 25 in default to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. against this conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. of the grounds urged in support of the appeal it is necessary to mention only one namely, the one relating to the non-compliance of the provisions of section 360, cr. p.c. in respect of one of the prosecution witnesses, namely, no. 10, satis chandra sarkar. it is alleged and it also appears to be a fact that the deposition of this witness was read over by the witness himself and he admitted it to be correct. it has been held by this court that this is not a sufficient.....
Judgment:

1. The appellant Sahorali Moll was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Faridpur with the aid of a Jury on a charge under Section 376, I.P.C. The Jury brought in a verdict of guilty in proportion of 4 to 1 and the learned Judge not finding sufficient reason to disregard the verdict of the majority of the Jury agreed with and accepted it, and convicted the appellant under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in default to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. Against this conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. Of the grounds urged in support of the appeal it is necessary to mention only one namely, the one relating to the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 360, Cr. P.C. in respect of one of the prosecution witnesses, namely, No. 10, Satis Chandra Sarkar. It is alleged and it also appears to be a fact that the deposition of this witness was read over by the witness himself and he admitted it to be correct. It has been held by this Court that this is not a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 360, Cr. P C. The conviction of and the sentence passed on the appellant must, therefore, be set aside.

3. The question now arises as to whether we should direct a, re-trial of the case. Having regard to the fact that the evidence of the woman is the only evidence in respect of the offence and the corroborative evidence, that has been adduced is not of such a character as can be relied upon with any degree of certainty. We think that no useful purpose will be served by a re-trial of this case.

4. The appellant will, therefore, be acquitted and released.


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