EMPEROR Vs. PHILLIP SPRATT (NO3)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I deferred my ruling yesterday about the admissibility of the document (Exhibit K in the Magistrate's 1927 Court) until I had time to read it and consider the arguments addressed to me. I have carefully read it. This is not the proper stage at which to discuss it in detail; and I think it suffices to say that, in my opinion, some of its contents are such that the prosecution can reasonably rely on them as evidence of intention regarding the charge against the accused. The fact of this document being, according to evidence in Court, in the handwriting of the accused and found in his possession on September 9, 1927, if it does contain evidence of intention such as I have mentioned is undoubtedly a fact which shows the existence of a state of mind, viz., the accused's intention, within the meaning of Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act. That is going primarily upon the plain wording of the section, but I will consider the objections that have been fairly put before me by Mr. Talyarkhan.

(2.) He says, first of all, that there is no connection shown between this document and the pamphlet (Exhibit F). But, it is not, in my opinion, necessary to show that there is a definite connection between a writing that may be evidence of intention, and the particular writing, which is the subject matter of the charge. The main question is whether the writing that is sought to be put in as evidence of intention does, in fact, contain matter which supports the contention that such intention is thereby shown. Take, for instance, the precedent in this Court of the post-card that was found in the accused's possession in the second Tilak trial before Mr. Justice Davar; that is the case of Emperor V/s. B.G. Tilake . In that case Mr. Justice Davar admitted the post-card as admissible evidence although there was no direct connection between the contents of that post-card and the subject matter of the charge, except in the sense, that it might be contended that the post-card contained evidence of his intention in regard to the writing about which the charge was made. At the same time, I do not mean to say I am deciding as to the weight to be attached to this document in this case. It is, of course, open to the defence to argue, if they can, that in the circumstances of the case and having regard to its other contents and so on, no weight should be attached to it, and that it does not really constitute evidence of the alleged intention of the accused. Thus, in regard to the particular post card that I have already mentioned, I see from the report at page 898 that Mr. Justice Davar told the gentlemen of the jury that, in his opinion, it was not a piece of evidence which should affect their minds. That is, of course, a different question. I am only deciding in favour of its admissibility as a piece of evidence which can be shown to the jury and arguments based upon it.

(3.) Then, the second objection raised was based on ill. (e) to Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is the one most nearly allied to the particular case that I am considering. It refers to "previous publications "as being relevant in a libel case, whereas this particular document was not published but was merely found in the possession of the accused. Similarly, I may refer also to ill. (j) which runs:- A is charged with sanding threatening letters to B, Threatening letters previously sent by A to B may be proved, as showing the intention of the letters.