1945 (7) TMI 11 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of evidence from a previous acquittal for corroboration.
2. Credibility and reliability of witness testimonies.
3. Legality and procedure of search and recovery of evidence.
4. Evaluation of evidence by the High Court and Sessions Judge.
5. Grounds for interference by His Majesty's Privy Council.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Evidence from a Previous Acquittal for Corroboration:
The main legal point was whether the High Court could accept evidence for corroboration of the accused's guilt in a murder case when the same evidence had failed to convince the Sessions Court of the accused's guilt in a robbery charge, resulting in acquittal. The Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of robbery but did not find the accusation baseless, only unproven. The High Court weighed the evidence and accepted its substantial truth for determining guilt in the murder charge. The Privy Council concluded that the acquittal did not prevent the High Court from considering the evidence in another case, emphasizing that the acquittal would allow the accused to plead autrefois acquit if charged again with the same crime, but it would not preclude the evidence's use in another criminal or civil case.

2. Credibility and Reliability of Witness Testimonies:
The High Court disbelieved the testimonies of Imam Din and the Assistant Sub-Inspector regarding the timing of the first information report, concluding it was made much later than claimed. The High Court also placed little reliance on the evidence of Mohammad Nawaz, Alam Khan, and the injured Nur Khan, stating it was unsafe to act on Nur Khan's statement without corroboration by unmistakable evidence or undeniable circumstances. The High Court found corroborative evidence against Malak Khan, noting the recovery of stolen articles from his courtyard, which was supported by the testimony of Inspector Lutaf Khan and one of the defense witnesses.

3. Legality and Procedure of Search and Recovery of Evidence:
The appellant argued that the Crown should have called the two witnesses who saw the articles recovered, as required by Section 165 and Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Privy Council noted that while the presence of witnesses at a search is desirable, it is not always essential if the articles were produced by the accused himself. The Privy Council emphasized that the absence of witnesses might weaken the evidence but does not necessarily invalidate it. The discretion lies with the prosecution counsel to call witnesses, and the Court must judge the evidence as a whole.

4. Evaluation of Evidence by the High Court and Sessions Judge:
The Sessions Judge ignored the robbery evidence and focused on the assault, convicting all accused of murder and causing grievous hurt but acquitting them of robbery. The High Court found the Sessions Judge's dismissal of the robbery charge incorrect and accepted the recovery of stolen articles as corroborative evidence against Malak Khan. The High Court allowed the appeals of the other accused but confirmed Malak Khan's death sentence under Section 302 of the Penal Code.

5. Grounds for Interference by His Majesty's Privy Council:
The appellant argued that the evidence had been wrongly evaluated and was insufficient to justify the conviction. The Privy Council reiterated that interference requires proof of substantial and grave injustice or disregard of legal process. They found no such disregard or injustice in this case and concluded that the High Court's conviction could not be challenged on the grounds presented.

Conclusion:
The Privy Council dismissed the appeal, advising His Majesty that the conviction and sentence should stand. The judgment emphasized the admissibility of evidence from a previous acquittal for corroboration, the discretion of the prosecution in calling witnesses, and the necessity of substantial injustice for interference in criminal proceedings.