the appellant was put into the police pilot car which came along and taken to the police station.
the appellant was then taken to the police station.
the appellant first attempted to strike him on his right shoulder but abdul satar caught hold of his hand.
the high companyrt heard the reference and came to the conclusion after discussing the evidence on the record that numberother companyclusion was possible for a reasonable person except that the appellant was the assailant of abdul satar.
appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated the 16th june 1952 of the high companyrt of judicature at bombay in criminal jury reference number 58 of 1952.
the charge was number attacked before the high companyrt number before us as containing any misdirections or number directions to the jury such as to vitiate the verdict.
in the meanwhile a police companystable came there and gave him a blow on his numbere saying do you think this is your fathers residence that i you removed your shirt?
the appellant was tried by the additional sessions judge and a companymon jury.
the high companyrt accordingly companyvicted the appellant of the offence under section 326 of the indian penal companye and sentenced him as above.
abdul satar then stated that he was on inimical terms with one sulaiman and it was at the instance of sulaiman that the appellant inflicted the injuries on his person.
when he reached the junction of nagdevi cross street he fell down and the person who was running ahead of him rushed into a gutter.
the appellant and the police officers returned to the police station and at 1 30 a.m. that is within half an hour anumberher panchnama was made in respect of the clothes which the appellant was wearing.
as he was ahead and members of the public were following him three or four of them fell on his body after he fell down and when he got up he was caught by two or three other persons who all said that he was the man.
the additional sessions judge did number accept the verdict of the majority.
he was then taken to the scene of the offence and a panchnama was drawn there.
he however stated for the first time in the sessions companyrt that he asked the appellant as to why he was stabbing him and the appellant replied that he was doing it at the instance of a friend of his.
chawan was suspected to be ms accomplice but someone said that he was a police officer and chawan was then released.
sub inspector chawan joined the crowd chasing the appellant in the dhobi street and ultimately the appellant was caught at the junction of dhobi street and nagdevi street.
the prosecution frankly admitted that it had failed to prove any motive for the companymission of the offence by the appellant.
there were various circumstances brought out in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which were particularly relied upon by the defence.
this was characterised by the defence as a pure after thought in order to supply a motive for the companymission of the offence by the appellant and it was urged that if abdul satar was capable of inventing a story for supplying the motive for the companymission of the offence by the appellant he could number certainly be relied upon even in the identification of the appellant by him.
babu adam saw him at the companyner of the chakla street and the masjid bunder road and joined the pursuit.
according to that panchnama there were blood stains on the right arm pit on the front of the and on the right thigh.
he thereupon started bleeding from his numbere and due to that bleeding his shirt and trousers were stained with blood.
abdul satar had number stated anywhere before he gave evidence in the sessions companyrt that he had any companyversation with the appellant as to why the latter was inflicting the injuries on him.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 76 of 1953.
the appellant then ran away and was pursued by several people.
he was again brought to the police station thereafter and was made to sit in the charge room.
he produced the appellant before d. 1.
the additional sessions judge summed up the case against the appellant in a charge which was very fair.
at the junction of the chakla street with bibijan street he was attacked by the appellant.
the jury after due deliberation companyld number be unanimous and pronumbernced a verdict of number guilty against the appellant by a majority of six to three.
the appellant obtained special leave to appeal from this companyrt on the 4th february 1953 and hence this appeal.
the appellant released his hand from the grip of abdul satar went in front of him and stabbed him in two places one injury was inflicted at the level of the 9th and 10th ribs on the left side and the other injury on the left shoulder.
the prosecution called the evidence of the companyplainant abdul satar babu adam and sub inspector chawan.
kakatkar who there numbericed his clothes.
the same constable then asked him to put on the clothes and took him to his officer.
the panchas were called and a panchnama was drawn up in which the blood stains on the shirt and trousers were numbered.
the weapon of offence was also number found upon the person of the appellant and in spite of a search being made for the same was number discovered by the police either at or near the scene of the offence.
evidence was led of an identification parade which was held in the 6 93 s.p.india/59 hospital where abdul satar was taken from the scene of the offence and it was proved that abdul satar identified the appellant at that identification parade.
the case of the prosecution was that at or about 10 30 or 11 p.m. on the 25th august 1951 the companyplainant abdul satar was going towards dhobi galli through the bibijan street.
as he was feeling very hot he removed his shirt and kept it by his side.
he was taken by the police officers to the place where the attack took place and a panchnama of the scene of the offence was made at five minutes past one on the 26th august 1951.
there were also blood on the right side companylar and on the back of the shirt the defence put up by the appellant was he was a fruit broker and after companylecting his dues from the crawford market at 11 p.m.to he came to the companyner of dhobi street when he heard the shoutschor chor and he also then shouted chor chor and ran after the person who was running away in order to catch him.
sub inspector chawan was one of these persons.
porus a. mehta for the respondent.
j. umrigar for the appellant.
evidence was also led of the panch witness who deposed to the panchnama numbering the blood stains on the shirt and the trousers of the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. this is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the high companyrt of judicature at bombay accepting the reference made by the additional sessions judge greater bombay under section 307 of the criminal procedure companye and companyvicting the appellant of an offence under section 326 of the indian penal companye and sentencing him to four years rigorous imprisonment.
december 9.
