BAI CHATURI Vs. STATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE we deal with the evidence, it would be desirable to state what the prosecution has to prove in a charge under S. 401, I.P.C., which reads as under:

(2.) EVIDENCE of general bad repute in a type of evidence of general bad character. It is provided in S. 54 of the Evidence Act that in criminal proceedings the fact that the accused person has a bad character is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a good character in which case it becomes relevant. Exception 1 to S. 54 provides that this section does not apply to cases in which the bad character of any person is itself a fact in issue. Exception 2 to S.54 provides that a previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character. It is, therefore, clear that evidence of bad character is relevant only when evidence has been given of good character of the accused and in cases where the bad character of the accused is itself a fact in bad character of the accused is itself a fact in issue. In Mankura Pasi v. Queen Empress, ILR 27 Cal 139, it is held relying on Queen v. Kamal Fukeer, 17 South WR Cr. 50, that the character of the accused not being a fact in issue in the offence of belonging to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft punishable under S. 401 of the I.P.C., evidence of bad character or reputation of the accused was inadmissible for the purpose of proving the commission of that offence. But, in Bonai v. Emperor, ILR 38 Cal 408, it has been observed that in cases where the other evidence has established association for the purpose of habitually committing theft, evidence of previous convictions whether for offences against property or for bad livelihood, has always been admitted, not as evidence of character, but as evidence of habit. It was also observed that:

(3.) ORDER accordingly.