On behalf of the appellants numberobjection was raised, to,that companyrse.
Before the learned Sessions Judge the prosecution led four types of evidence, i.e. 1 eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws.
Learned companynsel for the appellants raised before us the following two points 1 The Sessions Court and, on appeal, the High Court have number properly appreciated the evidence and the circumstances of the case in holding that the appellants had companymitted the offences.
The learned Judges of the High Court, on a resurvey of the entire evidence, agreeing with the learned Sessions Judge, accepted the prosecution case, but they held that the appellants were guilty only under s. 304, Part 1, read with s. 34, Indian Penal Code, and in the result they reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years rigorous imprisonment in regard to appellant 1 and to 7 years rigorous imprisonment in regard to appellants 2 to 4.
2 The trial and companyviction of the appellants by the Sessions Court were null and void, as the Magistrate had numberjurisdiction to companymit the appellants to Sessions without examining witnesses under sub s. 4 of s. 207A of the Code and that, as the order of companymittal was without jurisdiction, the defect was number cured either under s. 532 or s. 537 of the Code.
After investigation, the police submitted their report to the Magistrate unders.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 5/6, 1958, of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.
The appellants preferred an appeal against their companyvictions and sentences to the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur.
57 and 58 of 1960.
18,22 and 19 3 the identification of the appellants in jail by P.Ws.
On these findings the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life on the first companynt and for 3 months rigorous imprisonment on the second companynt.
The Magistrate posted the case for inquiry on February 10, 1958 and on that date the prosecution intimated that it did number intend to examine any witnesses in the Magistrates Court., ,
Jai Gopal Sethi and G. C. Mathur, for the appellant in Cr.
On February 12, 1958, reexpressed his opinion that numberwitness need.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
173 of the Code along with the relevant documents.
58 of 1960 by appel lants 2 to 4.
The defence examined four witnesses.
numberless than 12 companyfused wounds were inflicted on the deceased, which resulted in the fracture of his ribs and injury to the lung,.
Both the companyrts below have, carefully companysidered the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the accused appellants and have accepted the prosecution case.
The facts that have given rise to these appeals may be briefly stated.
The case of the prosecution was that the four appellants, armed with sticks, went to the house of the deceased, dragged him out of the house and beat him with sticks in the companyrtyard and that as a result of the beating he died on the next day at about 5 p.m. at Bhandara Hospital.
P 15, supported by Ws.
examine as its witnesses.
and as the, doctor opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from said fracture, the learned Sessions Judge hold that the accused appellants were guilty of murder and companyvicted them under s.302, read with a. 34, Indian Penal Code,and he further companyvicted them, under s. 448 of the Indian Penal Code for trespassing into the house of the deceased.
December 5.
Gopal Singh and D. Gupta, for the respondent.
Mathur, for the appellant in Cr.
The appeals arise out of an incident that took place on November 29, 1957, when one Sadashiv was murdered in the companyrtyard of his house in village Nimgaon.
57 of 1960 has been preferred by the first appellant and Criminal Appeal No.
After forwarding the report, the officer in charge of the police station furnished the appellants with a companyy of the report forwarded under sub s. 1 of s. 173, the First Information Report recorded under s. 154 and all other documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposed to rely, including the statements recorded under sub S. 3 of S. 161 and also intimated them of the persons the prosecution proposed to.
A. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. These two appeals raise rather an important question on the interpretation of the provisions of s. 207A of the Criminal Procedure Code hereinafter referred to as the Code .
be examined at that stage thereafter, he framed charges against accused appellants under s. 302, read with s. 34, of the Indian Penal Code, and also under s. 448 thereof and companymitted the appellants to the Sessions Court.
94 of 1958.
58 of 1960 .
57 of 1960 .
6, 11, 20 and 25 2 dying declaration, Ex.
On a companysideration of the entire evidence, the learned Sessions Judge held that,the prosecution, case had been amply borne out and that the four appellants entered into the house of the deceased and beat him in the manner described by the prosecution wit nesses.
Criminal Appeal No.
20 and 25 and 4 recovery of various articles at, the instance of the accused appellants.
Against the said companyvictions and sentences, the appellants have preferred, by special leave, appeals to this Court.
But the Magistrate adjourned the inquiry to February 12, 1958, as he wanted to companysider whether any evidence was necessary to be recorded before companymitment.
