OOMAYAN ALIAS GNANAPRAKASAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted as a result of unanimous verdict of a jury under Section 397, Penal Code, and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge of South Arcot division. When his jail appeal was perused by our learned brother Mack J. he made the following note:

(2.) It seems to us that in view of Section 418, Criminal P. C., it is not competent to this Court to go into question of fact in an appeal against a conviction as a result of a verdict by a jury. The learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to suggest any misdirection or any instance of non-direction either; and we ourselves, having per. used the charge to the jury, are unable to find any instance either of misdirection or non-direction. In such circumstances, it seems to us that the points contained in the note of the learned Judge which according to him, were curious features, namely, the admission of P. W. 5 that the accused was on bad terms with his family, the identification in the dark and the apparent monopoly of violent activity by accused in this dacoity are matters which are not within the purview of this Court to enquire into in an appeal. Apart from Section 418, there is no provision of law which would permit a Court to go into questions of fact. Even if the learned Sessions Judge had disagreed with the verdict of the jury and referred the case to the High Court under Section 307, Criminal P. C., still it is not open to this Court to weigh the evidence and find out whether the verdict of the jury, is justified on the evidence or not.

(3.) Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ramanugrah Singh v. King-Emperor, 25 Pat. 601 at pp. 607 and 608: (A.I.R. (33) 1946 P.C. 151: 47 Cr. L. J. 905) observed as follows :