BALABHADRA NARAYUDU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 131 of 1954 sanctioning prosecution of P. W. 3 in Sessions Case No. 91 of 1953. The simple question that arises for decision in the appeal is whether it is expedient in the interests of justice to sanction his prosecution.

(2.) THE ground on which the learned judge ordered sanction to prosecute that his statement before the Sessions Court was contradictory to the statement which he made before the Committing Magistrate. What he stated before the Committing Magistrate was that the 1st accused was near the corpse at the time of the cremation. In the Court of Session he went back upon that statement. That contradiction is not very material and even assuming that the 1st accused was present at the time of cremation it would not establish the guilt of the 1st accused. I agree with Rankin, C. J. in Keramut Ali v. Emperor AIR 1928 Cal 862 (A), that the mere existence of contradiction in the evidence of a witness is not sufficient for sanctioning prosecution under Section 476. The observations of Holroyd, J. , in twin's Crown case, page 270, extracted in Karnini Kumar v. Emperor AIR 1929 Cal 300 (E) are also very apposite and are as follows:

(3.) I. therefore allow the appeal, and set aside the order of the Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 131 of 1954. The complaint filed against him is hereby withdrawn.