SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1954 Supreme(SC) 50

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
18th March, 1954
M.C. MAHAJAN, C.J.I., BOSE AND GHULAM HASAN, JJ.
Versus
A. J. Peiris, Appellant
State of Madras, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1954.
Advocates appeared
Mehta Puran Chand, Advocate (appointed by the Court at Government expense), for Appellant; Mr. V.T.R. Iyengar, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. Ganapathy Iyer Advocate, with him), instructed by Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Agent for Respondent.

Advocates:
PURAN CHAND MEHTA, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, V.T.RANGASVAMI IYENGAR

Headnote:Constitution of India, Art. 136- Interference with finding of fact-Criminal appeals.

       Held: A finding of fact depending upon the merits or appreciation of the evidence is not open to reconsideration is an appeal brought by

       I. N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakhal Con3tituency and others (1952) S.C.R. 218 referred to special leave. In the particular case no flagrant error of law or procedure had been pointed out to the Supreme Court in the findings of the Courts below, nor was the Supreme Court satisfied that in arriving at findings of fact any miscarriage of jusice had resulted to accused. - Sections 337, 342-Formal order of discharge whether necessary

       Held: The accused admitted before the District Magistrate that the confessional statement made by him at Bombay a copy of which was read over to him was voluntarily made by him and that he accepted it as a true statement of all that transpired in connection with the conspiracy and also about the murder and disposal of the dead body of the deceased. The District Magistrate thereupon passed the order that it was a fit case for tendering pardon to him under section 337 (1) of the Cr. P.C. The moment the pardon was tendered to the accused he must be presumed to have been discharged whereupon he ceased to be the accused and became a witness. The objection, therefore, that before tendering the pardon to him he had not been discharged and consequently his evidence as an approver was not legally admissible could not hold good. - Sections 337 (1), Proviso, 338-Scope.

       Held: By section 338 of the Cr. P. C. power is no doubt given after the commitment to the court to which the commitment is made to tender pardon, to any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned with any offence or order the Committing Magistrate or the District Magistrate to tender the pardon. The section vests the court to which commitment is made with power to tender pardon or order the Committing Magistrate or the District Magistrate to tender pardon during the trial of the case but it does not takeaway the power conferred under the proviso to section 337 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The proviso contains an additional provision which empowers the District Magistrate to tender pardon where the offences are under inquiry or trial.

Judgment

GHULAM HASAN, J. : This appeal is brought by special leave against the appellate Judgment and order dated July 31, 1953, of the Madras High Court, upholding the conviction and sentence of death of the appellant under section 120-B, read with section 302 & Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Sessions Judge, South Kanara, on November 29, 1952.

2. The appellant A. J. Peiris was charged along with Augustine Souza and David Souza with having conspired with one Albert Patrao between November and December 1950 to Murder George, the deceased, and that in pursuance of this conspiracy George was murdered on December 20, 1950, at Kuthethur in Mangalore Taluk at about 10 P.M.

There was also a charge under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the disappearance of the evidence of murder. The Sessions Judge of South Kanara, who tried the case, convicted the appellant under section 120-B, read with section 302 and section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death. The other two accused were convicted under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. No conviction was recorded in respect of the charge under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The appellant Periris is a native of Ceylon who used to reside in Ceylon House, Bombay. He posed as a big diamond merchant and a prosperous business man who had numerous contacts with Maharajas and other big people as his clients. Between 1922 and 1942 he appears to have had at least ten convictions to his credit for theft, house-breaking and other offences. In 1946 he met a woman called Lucy Patrao who was then living in Bombay and married her. Lucy is the sister of Albert Patrao who figures as an approver (P. W. 60) in the case. David Souza is the maternal uncle of Lucy and Albert.

In 1947 or so Peiris set up a house in Bangalore where he met George who was then working as salesman in the Radio shop of one Suresh Trivedi (P. W. 32). George worked with Trivedi for a year and half but left him in the latter half of 1947. Early in 1949 Peiris moved to Mangalore where he took a house in which George bagan to live as a member of his household. In 1950 he moved into a house in Bijey where George continued to live in his household. This house was expensively furnished and gave an impression to the visitors that it was occupied by a prosperous man. Peiris himself was absent most of the time and visited Mangalore from time to time when he stayed in Bijey.

On September 13, 1950, the sub-Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Mangalore, searched this house on information received from the Bombay Police, Peiris concealed himself and avoided the police. He disappeared soon after saying that he was going to Bombay. Lucy stayed with George in this house. The two became unduly familiar and conducted themselves as if they were husband and wife. George after moving into the house at Bijey took to excessive drinking. Augustine and Albert became frequent visitors to the house and the three used to go about a great deal and drink together. They became intimate friends, Georgae s immoderate drinking upset Peiris who became nervous that George might not betray him. It is alleged that George and Peiris exchanged hot words when Peiris returned to the house a month and a half after the search.

4. In November 1950, Albert was working in a restaurant in Bombay but Peiris persuaded him to leave service and come with him to Mangalore. Albert reluctantly agreed and came to Mangalore with Peiris on November 22. Peiris introduced George to him as his clerk. The story as given by the approver then proceeds that Peiris told Augustine and Albert that George was drinking heavily, was wasting his money and was creating lot of trouble. He apprehended that he might betray his secrets. He told Albert that George should be murdered.

Albert at first refused to be a party to this conspiracy but eventually agreed when he was told by Augustine that he would give the necessary help to hi























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top