SOWRIRAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of East Tanjore at Mayuratm, under Section 307 Criminal P. C., wherein the learned Judge after differing from the unanimous verdict of guilty by the jury wants the Court to accept his opinion that the accused is not guilty of any offence whatever. In his letter of reference the learned Judge has given reasons for making the reference and a perusal of the same shows that he does not agree with the opinion of the jury regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. In para. 4-the learned Judge says that it is very doubtful whether P. W. 1 knew prior to his giving the complaint on 9th January 1949 that it was the accused who committed the robbery. He goes on to state that it is also doubtful if P. W. .2 who professes to be an eye-witness was there on that afternoon. Dealing with the testimony of P. Ws. 9 and 4, the learned Judge was inclined to conclude that their evidence cannot be accepted. In short, the reasoning of the learned Judge for differing from the jury and making the reference is that he would have come to a different conclusion on the evidence from that arrived at by the jury.

(2.) Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Ramanugrah Singh v. Emperor, 26 Pat. 601: (A.I.R. (38) 1946 P. C.-151: 47 Cr. L. J. 905) have authoritatively laid down the principles and rules that ought to guide and govern a Sessions Judge in making a reference under Section 307, Criminal P. C., when he disagrees with the verdict of the jury. Their Lordships also state what the powers of the High Court are on such references. At page 607 of the report the following observations of Sir John Beaumont may be recapitulated:

(3.) In Thiagaraja v. Emperor, I. l. r. (1948) Mad, 70 at p. 82 : (A. I. R. (34) 1947 P. C. 113 : 48 Cr. L. J. 765), the Privy Council has again reiterated the self-same principle. We may also remark that it was on the self-same basis that this Court had been proceeding ever since the Full Bench decision in Veerappa Goundan, In re, 51 Mad. 956 : (A.I.R. (15) 1928 Mad. 1186: 30 Cr. L. 3. 317 F.B.).