IMMANENI HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. STATE
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
IMMANENI HANUMANTHA RAO
Referred Judgements :-
EMPEROR V. KAMPU KUKI
SUKHAR V. EMPEROR
KING EMPEROR V. RAMANUJAM
PALANIANDI VELAN V. EMPEROR
GANU CHANDRA V. EMPEROR
TOUNG V. BRISTON AEROPLANE CO.
PULUKURI KOTAYYA V. KING EMPEROR
EMPEROR VS. SIKANDAR
HAPPU VS. EMPEROR
Click here to view full judgement.
Umamaheswaram, J. -
(1.)I have perused the judgment of my learned brother and
I agree with his conclusion. I am satisfied on the evidence on record that the
appellant administered about one grain or more of sodium nitrite poison. But, as
the prosecution has not established, beyond doubt, that the lethal dose was administered
the benefit of doubt must be given to him. I agree that the appellant is
liable to be convicted under section 328, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.
(2.)I do not think that it is necessary for me to decide in this case as to how far the
discovery of a witness is a discovery of a fact within the meaning of section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act. In Palaniandi Velan v. Emperor,(1934) M.W.N.601.
a Division Bench of the Madras High Court took the view that the
discovery of a witness to the crime or act of
the accused, on his information would not be a discovery of a fact within the meaning
of the section. In King Emperor v. Ramanujam,(1934) 68 M.L.J. (Sup.) 73 : I.L.R. 58
Mad. 642, 655 and 666.
a Special Bench" of three Judges,
constituted by the Chief Justice In the exercise, of his powers under clause 25 of the
Letters Patent, had to consider the scope and effect of section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act. Burn, J., without discussing the numerous cases cited before him
held as follows :-
"Section 27 says ' any fact', but, in spite of that, the contention is, we must suppose that it
means only facts of this peculiar nature. I must decline for my part to
accept any such contention.. Nothing can be easier to understand
than the words ' any fact' and I am not prepared to hold that
they mean less than they say. I shall therefore no discuss any
of the numerous cases cited by Mr. T. R. Venkatarama Sastri in which
learned Judges have gone the length of holding that the only facts
contemplated by section 27 are actual physical material objects.
There is no warrant for any such
(3.)Cornish, J., also took the same view. But, Lakshmanarao, J.. dissented from them
and held as follows :
"The fact discovered may thus be the stolen property, the instrument of the crime, the corpse
of the person murdered or any other material thing, or a material thing in relation to the place or the
locality where it is found, and it should confirm the information though its connection with the crime
and identification are always provable aliunde. The discovery of a witness to the crime or act of the
accused, on his information, would not be a discovery of a fact within the meaning of the section, vide
Palaniandi Velan v. Emperor',(1934) M.W.N.601.
and the confirmation or otherwise of the statement of the accused by the
witness discovered cannot make any difference. Further,
section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prohibits the use of
any statement by the witness to the investigation officer, and the
discovery should in my opinion be of some concrete fact."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.