LAWS(PVC)-1937-2-37

ENDAPALLE ELLA REDDI Vs. EMPEROR

Decided On February 11, 1937
ENDAPALLE ELLA REDDI Appellant
V/S
EMPEROR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of the order of the District Magistrate of Chittoor setting aside an order of discharge passed by the Sub-Magistrate of Piler in a case under Section 307, Penal Code (attempt to murder). It appears that the case was first reported by the Village Magistrate to the police and was found by the police to be false. Subsequently at the instance of the complainant himself who was injured, the preliminary enquiry went on. The story for the prosecution was that the accused shot at the complainant from a distance of 15 or 16 yards with a breach-loading gun and injured him in the left thigh. The defence was that P.W. 1 had attempted to kill himself with his uncle's gun which was a muzzle loader and in doing so, bungled and injured himself in the thigh instead of in any vital part of the body. P.W. 8, the Village Magistrate, taking advantage of this circumstance foisted a false case against the accused.

(2.) The Sub-Magistrate of Piler took the whole of the evidence both for the prosecution and for the defence, wrote a long and considered judgment in which he pointed out that in his opinion the eyewitness, P.W. 2, and the other important prosecution witnesses who say that they saw the accused at the scene of offence were not present there; that the Village Magistrate had taken a very unusual interest in the case and though at first he denied having done so, when questioned about it in cross-examination, was afterwards compelled to admit it; that blood was found at the spot where P.W. 1 is stated by the defence to have attempted to commit suicide; and that the nature of the wound and the position of the wound are inconsistent with the case for the prosecution, that the shot was fired from a distance of 15 or 16 yards in front of P.W. 1. On these conclusions, the Sub-Magistrate found that the case was utterly false and accordingly discharged the accused under Section 209, Criminal P.C. The complainant thereupon moved the learned District Magistrate in revision and the learned District Magistrate set aside the order of discharge in a very brief order which reads as follows: On perusing the records and hearing the parties I find that the order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate cannot be allowed to stand, on the face of the medical evidence against the theory of the self-infliction of the injury. The Subordinate Magistrate should not have weighed the evidence of the medical witness in the preliminary enquiry as he did--that should have been left to the Court of Session.

(3.) It must be pointed out that this is a very unsatisfactory order. The learned District Magistrate should at least in setting aside an order of this kind passed by the Sub-Magistrate after a lengthy consideration of the whole evidence have indicated in some greater detail how the order was wrong. It appears that the learned District Magistrate was of the opinion that the medical evidence conclusively proved the falsity of the defence. It is extraordinary to me how that conclusion could be reached by the learned District Magistrate, for I find that the doctor in cross-examination says this: I adhere to my opinion that the injury of P.W. 1 could not be self-inflicted one. Because the injury of P.W. 1 was not on his head, mouth and chest, I have expressed that it cannot be self- inflicted.