BOYA CHINNA LINGAPPA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applt in this case was accused 1 in sessions case No. 18 of 1949 on the file of the Ct of Session, Anantapur. He & another were tried for an offence under Section 307 I. P. C. Accused 2 was acquitted, but the applt alone was convicted & was sentenced to R. I. for two years & to pay a fine of Rs. 100.

(2.) This appeal has to be allowed on a question of law. The occurrence is said to have -taken place at about 11 p.m. on 1-2-1949. Information was given at about 1 a.m. on 2-2-1949. It was recorded by P. W. 7, who was the station writer of the police station, where the information was given. He said in his evidence that he investigated into the case & recorded statements of witnesses. He examined P. W. 1 & he also examined P. Ws. 3 to 6 & recorded their statements. These statements constitute statements under Section 162, Cr. P. C. The learned Ses. J. finds in para 6 of his judgment that these statements were not made available to the accused for cross-examination; but he rests content with remarking that "the police in this case did not play the game well". In my opinion the objection goes to the root of the case. It has been pointed out by the P. C, in 'Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor', 1947-1 MLJ 219 at p. 222 : (AIR (34) 1947 P C 67: 48 Cr L J 533) as follows :

(3.) I, therefore, set aside the conviction & sentence & acquit the applt. The fine if paid will be refunded.