Patna High Court
Lakhan Singh vs Emperor on 11 January, 1929
Equivalent citations: 119IND. CAS.560, AIR 1929 PATNA 231
JUDGMENT Wort, J.
1. This rule is directed to show cause why the conviction of one Lakhan Singh should not be set aside. The main ground upon which the rule is supported by Mr. Pugh is that the judgment of the Appellate Court is not in accordance with law inasmuch as the special defence which was set up by Lakhan Singh has not been considered. That defence was one of alibi, and the trial Court dealt with it by stating in effect that even if in fact Lakhan Singh was at Beguserai on the day of the occurrence yet it was not impossible for him to have been at the occurrence on the same day.
2. The learned Sessions Judge in the course of his judgment deals with various witnesses who were called on behalf of the defence and particularly with, the witnesses who were called to prove this alibi. It is true that he has not specifically stated that he does not accept that evidence, nor does he specifically state that the alibi is not made out. But in the course of his judgment he does state that he agrees with the conclusion at which the learned trial Court had arrived. If this expression of opinion bad stood by itself, that is to say, without his having dealt in his judgment with the evidence which had been adduced, I should have come to the conclusion that the judgment was not in accordance with law inasmuch as it did not comply with Section 424, Criminal Procedure Code. But, having regard to the fact that the evidence was quite clearly in his mind as it appears from the judgment, in my opinion it would be impossible to say that he had not considered the case of Lakhan Singh. The jurisdiction of this Court in a matter of this kind, it is obvious, must be exercised reasonably, and if I were to direct a re-hearing of this appeal, no advantage would be gained, not even to the accused himself. I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has considered this evidence, and the mere absence of a finding on the alleged fact of the alibi apart from his general finding that the prosecution case was made out, is not sufficient to state that it was not in accordance with law. In those circumstances, the only order that I can make is that the Rule must be discharged and the accused must surrender to his bail to serve out the remainer of his sentence.