MAHAMMAD YUSUF Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the purpose of deciding this appeal the general facts of the case are not material.

(2.) Four persons, the two appellants and two others named respectively Mahammad Siddiq and Pannalal were committed to the Sessions at Alipore, on joint charges. The first three pleaded not guilty; Pannalal pleaded guilty. The learned Judge accepted his plea convicted him thereon and ordered that in-view of his age and antecedents he should be detained in a Borstal institution. Further he ordered that he should be examined medically forthwith and after that had been done he would fix the period of detention. The case then proceeded against the other three and among other witnesses Pannalal was called by the prosecution and gave evidence on oath against them. All this-took place on the same day. The trial proceeded and three days later the medical report on Pannalal was received and; the learned Judge fixed the period of his detention at three years. The trial was resumed and eventually the jury found a verdict of not guilty in favour of Mahammad Siddiq and of guilty against the other two. The learned Judge accepted these verdicts acquitted Mahammad Siddiq and sentenced each of the appellants to be detained in a Borstal institution for three years.

(3.) The only point of substance raised by the learned advocate for the appellants was that Pannalal's evidence was inadmissible because when he gave it he-was an accused person and therefore was incompetent as a witness.