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

1963 Supreme(AP) 240

N.KUMARAYYA, SHARFUDDIN AHMED
In Re: Javvaji Uthanna – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent


KUMARAYYA, J.

( 1 ) THE short point that falls for determination in these four revision petitions is whether having regard to the provisions of Section 479-A (1), Criminal Procedure Code, it was obligatory on the Additional Sessions Judge to give the petitioners opportunity of being heard after recording a Ending contemplated by that Sub-clause and before making a complaint in writing for the offence of perjury under section 193, I. P. C.

( 2 ) THE petitioners were called as eye-witnesses (P. Ws. 1 to 4) in Sessions Case No. 19/62 in relation to the stab injuries inflicted on P. W. 1 and E. Venkataramana as a result of which Venkataiamana died on 2-11-1961. These witnesses before the committal Court as also before the Magistrate under Section 164, Cri. P. C. , deposed that they had actually witnessed the stabbing of the deceased, Venkataramana, by A. 1 and gave all other details of the occurrence. They deposed to the fact that P. W. 1 was stabbed by A. 2 and gave all further details in relation thereto. But when they were called as witnesses in the Sessions Court, they turned hostile to the prosecution and completely gave a go-by to the fact of their having witnessed the stabbing o






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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top