IMMANENI HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. STATE
LAWS(APH)-1955-12-11
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 20,1955

IMMANENI HANUMANTHA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EMPEROR V. KAMPU KUKI [REFERRED TO]
SUKHAR V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
KING EMPEROR V. RAMANUJAM [REFERRED TO]
PALANIANDI VELAN V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
GANU CHANDRA V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
TOUNG V. BRISTON AEROPLANE CO. [REFERRED TO]
PULUKURI KOTAYYA V. KING EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR VS. SIKANDAR [REFERRED TO]
HAPPU VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

VISHAL PIPES LIMITED VS. BHAVYA PIPE INDUSTRY [LAWS(DLH)-2022-6-90] [REFERRED TO]
M/S PANKAJ HOTEL VS. BAL MUKUND [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SHARMA ALIAS PINTU VS. ANIL DUA ALIAS TITU [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-122] [REFERRED TO]
ANTHONY JOSEPH VS. B.K. TIWARI [LAWS(APH)-1973-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
HUBERT PEYOLI VS. ABUSALI [LAWS(KER)-2007-7-76] [REFERRED TO]
SATWANT SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1986-5-14] [REFERRED]
Surayya Afzal Khan VS. Raza Shah Fakir Takiya and Masjid Trust [LAWS(BOM)-2005-12-54] [REFERRED TO]
JANDHYALA LAKSHMINARASIMHA SASTRY VS. KADIYALA KOTISWAMY DIED [LAWS(APH)-1995-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
MARRAPU NARAYANAMMA VS. MARRAPU SATYANARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-1959-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASHINI MALIK VS. S.K. GANDHI & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-123] [REFERRED TO]
SAMUDRALA NAGABHUSHANAM VS. VENKANA RAGHAVAYYA [LAWS(APH)-1966-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
RAYALASEEMA BANK LIMITED VS. THARIGOPALA PEDDA NARAYANAPPA [LAWS(APH)-1960-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
DRONAVAJJULA VIDYAMBA VS. VALLABHAJOSYULA LAKSHMI VENKAYAMMA [LAWS(APH)-1997-9-189] [REFERRED TO]
HUBERT PEYOLI VS. M ABUSALI [LAWS(KER)-2007-7-64] [REFERRED TO]


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 limitation."

(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."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.