1938 (7) TMI 14 - HC - Indian Laws

Witness Competency, Evidence Admissibility, Joinder, and Sentencing: Key Legal Points Addressed

Emperor Versus Karamalli Gulamalli

The court in this case addressed the competency of witness Aziz, the admissibility of his evidence, joinder of charges, punishment for conspiracy, ... - Issues:Competency of witness Aziz, Admissibility of evidence, Joinder of charges, Punishment for conspiracy, Conviction of accused, Separate sentencingCompetency of Witness Aziz:The judgment addresses the issue of whether witness Aziz is competent and if his evidence is admissible. The prosecution sought to make Aziz an approver, but the Magistrate declined, leading to a separate trial for Aziz. Various legal precedents were discussed, including Reg. v. Hanmanta, Queen-Empress v. Mona Puna, and Empress v. Durant. The court concluded that Aziz was a competent witness as he was not an accused under Section 342 or 343 of the Code, and there was no evidence of inducement affecting his testimony.Admissibility of Evidence:The judgment delves into the value of Aziz's evidence, distinguishing it from its admissibility. The court noted that Aziz was not discharged, and his evidence was to be treated similarly to the other accused. The discussion raised concerns about the reliability of his evidence compared to an approver but highlighted that an approver's pardon could be revoked if their testimony deviated significantly.Joinder of Charges:The judgment raised a legal point regarding the joinder of charges, specifically charges 2 to 4, which alleged multiple offenses over a three-year period. The court examined legal precedents such as Maung Ba Chit v. King-Emperor and Harsha Nath Chatterjee v. Emperor to determine the admissibility of such omnibus charges. It was concluded that the charges lacked specificity, potentially violating Section 222 and Section 233 of the Code.Punishment for Conspiracy:The judgment discussed the punishment for conspiracy under Section 120 B, emphasizing that the punishment depends on whether the illegal acts were carried out. It highlighted that acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy must be separately charged and particularized as required by the Code to avoid separate punishment under different sections.Conviction of Accused and Separate Sentencing:The court analyzed the evidence presented in the case, concluding that Accused No. 5 was involved in offenses under Section 263 of the Indian Penal Code but raised doubts about their involvement in the conspiracy. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were convicted of conspiracy, but the separate sentencing under charges 2, 3, and 4 was deemed improper. The judgment set aside the convictions and sentences under Section 263 read with Section 109, confirmed the convictions under Section 120 B for Accused Nos. 1 to 4, and acquitted Accused No. 5 under Section 120 B.Conclusion:The judgment ultimately set aside the convictions and sentences under Section 263 read with Section 109, confirmed the convictions under Section 120 B for Accused Nos. 1 to 4, and acquitted Accused No. 5 under Section 120 B. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were directed to surrender to their bail to complete their sentence.