Report No. 35
Case No. 46
Kartar Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Lah 259 (260)
(Tek Chand & Jai Lal JJ.)
(Judgment by Tekchand J.)
This was a case of young boy of 17 years participating in murder under the influence of his father and elder brother. He was sentenced to transportation for life by the Sessions Judge. High Court agreed, and also recommended to Local Government to reduce it under section 401 Criminal Procedure Code to four years' rigorous imprisonment.1
1. There are, however, observations in Emp. v. Nirmal Jiban, AIR 1935 Cal 513 (525) which suggests that if the accused who were young had expressed remorse for their offence, court might have imposed lesser penalty.
Case No. 47
Mt. Dhulan v. Emperor, AIR 1934 Lah 31
(Jai Lal and Bhide JJ.)
(Judgment by Jai Lal J.)
A woman of 20 years and weak intellect was turned out by her husband on account of her weak intellect and led a roaming life. She became pregnant and was turned out by the relations. She gave birth to a child. Owing to poverty and ill-treatment by the relations, she threw the child-a girl of 11 days-in a pond. She was sentenced to transportation for life by the Sessions Judge.
The sentence was affirmed by the High Court. But in view of the circumstances, recommendations was made by the High Court to the Local Government for reducing the sentence to one year's rigorous imprisonment under section 401, Criminal Procedure Code.
Case No. 48
Kaim, AIR 1935 Sind 44 (46)
(Ferrers J.C. and Dadiba C. Mehta A.J.C.)
It was held that the Baluchi custom of killing for unchastity is not a mitigating circumstance.
Case No. 49
Emp. v. Mominuddi Sardar, AIR 1935 Cal 591 (594, 595)
(Patterson and Cunliffe JJ.)
(Judgment by both)
Penitence of the accused is not a ground for imposing the lesser penalty1. (Nor is the fact that accused is the only son of his widowed mother). But penitence can perhaps be taken into account by the local Government.
(Sentence was, however, reduced in this case on other grounds-that of provocation and the age of the accused, who was 22 or 23 years).
1. Para. 8 in the AIR.
Case No. 49A
Emp. v. Nirmal Jiban, AIR 1935 Cal 513 (525, 526)
(Costello, Bartley and Henderson JJ.)
In this case, the High Court confirmed the sentences of death on three persons-terrorists convicted of by the Commissioners (Special Tribunal) appointed under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1925 of the murder of Mr. Burge, District Magistrate, Midnapur. The Commissioners, while noting their "extreme youth" (exact age not given in judgment), had also observed that the object of their activities was a "deadly" one. The High Court agreed and stated that if the accused had shown that they were impressionable youths dominated by others and had expressed regret, extenuating circumstances might have been pleaded. But that was not the case here.
Case No. 50
Rangappa Goundan, 1935 ILR 59 Mad 349
It was held that consent or admission by the Advocate of the accused to dispense with the medical witness in a murder case cannot relieve the prosecution of proving the nature of the injuries and the fact that they caused death. (It was also held in this case that a post mortem report is no evidence and can only be used to refresh the memory of the person who prepared it.)