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

1937 Supreme(Mad) 120

BEASLEY, MOCKETT, HORWILL
Athappa Goundan – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Beasley, C.J.

1. The following questions have been referred to Full Bench, viz.:

(1) Is the whole or any part of the following statement: He said that at about 11 P.M. on the night of March 26, 1936, himself and Gurunatha Goundan, son of Kanda Goundan of Erangattur, together killed Sennimalai Goundan alias Sottayan by gauging his mouth with cloth and throttling his neck with hands and also by putting a rope and pressing it...that night...they got two bottles of illicit arrack by paying Rs. 2 to Gandhi Ranga Royan of Kallippatti who got it from some other place...that a small quantity was left over in one bottle only, that...(they) buried (1) the empty bottle, (2) a rope and the cloth, gag in a dunghill next to the cattls shed in the same compound and the other bottle with some arrack in a heap of mud near a log of wood in a corner of the compound east to the choultry at Kallippatti and that he would go and take them and produce them. This is known to us, alleged to have been made by accused No. 1 admissible against accused No. 1 under Section 27, Evidence Act, and if yes, how much of it; and (2) if the answer to No. 1 is in the affirmative, can such statements or any part the






















































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