Case Details

Citation(s)
1956 SLG 399 1956 SLD 399 = 1956 PLD 402
Federal Court, Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1956, decided on 14th February, 1956, from the judgment and order of the High Court of judi cature at Dacca, dated the 30th August 1955 in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1955.
Present : Muhammad Munir, C. J., Akram, Shahabuddin, Cornelius and Muhammad Sharif, JJ
M. Fazlul Haq for Appellants.   Maksum-ul-Hakim, instructed by Nandalal Dass, Attorney for
Respondent.

DIL MUHAMMAD MONDAL-Appellant

VERSUS

THE CROWN-Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 307

P L D 1956 Federal Court 402           Leave to appeal to Federal Court-----Granted to consider whether the High Court was right in holding that jury's verdict of "not guilty" was plainly wrong.   Leave to appeal to the Federal Court was granted to con victs on a jail petition to consider whether in the state of evidence on record it could rightly be held by the Judges of the High Court that the jury's verdict of "not guilty" was plainly wrong.   Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 307-High Court not obliged to accept or reject reference as a whole -Jury's failure to act upon unrebutted direct evidence of disinterested witnesses--Verdict perverse-Law governing inter ference with verdicts of jury.   The Sessions Judge, differing with a verdict of not guilty in respect of all 14 accused submitted the case to the High Court under section 307, Criminal P. C. recording the grounds of his opinion that all the accused should be convicted on the charge of dacoity.   The High Court accepted the reference in respect of five accused only and rejected it in respect of nine remaining accused:   Held, that there was nothing in section 307, Criminal p, C. which obliged the High Court to accept or reject the recommendation as a whole. Indeed, any such indication or provision would conflict with the 'overriding consideration, namely that the ends of justice should be met. Conse quently there was nothing in law to prevent the High Court from accepting a reference in part, in relation to one or more accused persons, but to reject it with reference to the remaining accused persons.   Held further that failure of the jury to act upon the direct evidence of disinterested witnesses implicating the five appellants in the offence of dacoity, which evidence was entirely unrebutted, was perverse.   Law governing interference with verdicts of jury indicated.   Ramanugrah Singh v. King Emperor 73 I A 174 ref.   Identification----Darkness with only a lantern and a few torches-Memorising faces of "so many" (15 to 25) dacoits-Doubtful.   Criminal trial----Allegation…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register