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

1916 Supreme(Mad) 62

A.RAHIM, C TROTTER
In Re: Turimella Kurmanna – Appellant
Versus
Unknown – Respondent


ORDER

1. The four accused persons in this case were tried upon charges under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and alternatively under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. They were tried by a Jury and the Jury having returned a verdict of not guilty, the learned Sessions Judge disagreed with that verdict and has referred the case to us under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused have not appeared before us, but we have considered the evidence and there can be no question but that upon the evidence the accused were guilty at least of an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence of prosecution 1st witness shows that he had bolted the doors of his house on the night in question and he was inside the room sleeping when apparently a thief or thieves entered the house by opening one of the doors from outside by making a hole in the door undoing the bolt and they removed a cavidi box and 4 bell-metal cups which were in that box. The box was found outside the village not very far off in a broken condition, all its contents having been removed. There is no direct evidence connecting any of these accused persons with the breaking into 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