IMMANENI HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have perused the judgment of my learned brother and I agree with his conclusion. I am satisfied on the evidence on record that the appellant administered about one grain or more of sodium nitrite poison. But, as the prosecution has not established, beyond doubt, that the lethal dose was administered the benefit of doubt must be given to him. I agree that the appellant is liable to be convicted under section 328, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.

(2.) I do not think that it is necessary for me to decide in this case as to how far the discovery of a witness is a discovery of a fact within the meaning of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In Palaniandi Velan v. Emperor,(1934) M.W.N.601. a Division Bench of the Madras High Court took the view that the discovery of a witness to the crime or act of the accused, on his information would not be a discovery of a fact within the meaning of the section. In King Emperor v. Ramanujam,(1934) 68 M.L.J. (Sup.) 73 : I.L.R. 58 Mad. 642, 655 and 666. a Special Bench" of three Judges, constituted by the Chief Justice In the exercise, of his powers under clause 25 of the Letters Patent, had to consider the scope and effect of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Burn, J., without discussing the numerous cases cited before him held as follows :-

(3.) Cornish, J., also took the same view. But, Lakshmanarao, J.. dissented from them and held as follows :