Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Emperor vs Panchkowri Dutt on 25 June, 1924

Nilmadhab Chowdhry And Ors. vs Emperor on 23 July, 1925

58. It may, of course, justly: be said that what the intention of the Legislature was is not really material when a Tribunal is called upon to place a construction upon the words of a section in an enactment, but I thought that it would be as well to dissipate any doubt there might be with regard to what was in fact the intention of the Legislative body. It is quite true that in the case of Emperor v. Panchkori Dutt 86 Ind. Cas. 414 : 52 C. 67 : 29 C.W.N. 300 : A.I.R. 1925 Cal. 587 : 26 Cr. L.J. 782.
Patna High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

In Re: Boya Chinna Papanna vs Unknown on 23 July, 1941

17. It is said that in this case the appellant set up the story that he was beaten by the police and that if it was true, there would have been some marks of violence on the person of the accused. As regards the argument that the accused has not proved that he was beaten, it is as in most of such cases impossible to expect him to be able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he was belaboured or that there are any of the infirmative circumstances mentioned in Section 24. Then it is said that what was suggested to the Sub-Inspector during the cross-examination was that some inducements were held out to the appellant in order to induce him to confess and not that he was beaten. P.W. 11 was asked whether he did not tell either of the accused that he would be taken as an approver if he confessed and he was also asked whether it was not true that accused 1 and 2 were arrested even before the 9th and compelled to make a confessional statement. There is enough suggestion in this second sentence that they were compelled and what is mentioned in the accuseds' statement is only an elaboration of what is taken down as compelled in the cross-examination of P.W. 11. There is nothing in the evidence of P. W. 10 to advance the case of the prosecution. There are enough materials in this case to raise a very serious doubt in my mind about the free and voluntary nature of Ex. D. 1 apply therefore the rule enunciated in Emperor v. Panchkowri Dutt (1924) I.L.R. 52 Cal. 67, and hold that it was the duty of the prosecution to have satisfied the Court that none of the circumstances mentioned in Section 24 exist in this case and the evidence falls far short of it. On the other hand, all the circumstances point to the conclusion that very much more should have happened than what is admitted by the prosecution.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Muhammad Suleman And Ors. vs Emperor on 11 August, 1926

25. The other source is Section 7 of Act IV of 1866, which provides for the appointment of the Deputies to the Commissioner of Police as Justices of the Peace and enables them to act in that capacity as Justices only so far as may be necessary for the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crimes, and detection, apprehension and detention of offenders in order to their being brought before a Magistrate of Police. This source, however, need not be examined, as the learned Advocate-General has expressly disowned it. His complaint, on the other hand, is that the arguments of the Grown on previous occasions were misunderstood, and he has said that the Grown does not seek to justify the power of unlimited detention on the part of the Deputy Commissioners as being founded on their capacity as Justices of the Peace. If this complaint is directed against my observations in the case of Emperor v. Panchkari Dutt I hasten to apologise.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Rangappa Hanamappa And Anr. vs State on 8 September, 1953

-- 'Emperor v. Panchkari Dutt has been cited by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment in support of his conclusion that the confessions in question are inadmissible, and indeed the said judgment is referred to in some of the reported judgments also for the same purpose. When we examine the judgment, however, it appears to be clear that Mr. Justice Mukerji did not decide the question as to whether a confession which is recorded Without complying with the provisions of Section 164(3) is admissible or not. The admissibility of the confession was challenged before Mr. Justice Mukerji on two grounds. The first was that the confession was involuntary and the second was that it had not been recorded as required by Section 164(3).
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Emperor vs Savlimiya Miyabhai on 11 April, 1944

Under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code when an accused person desires to maka a confession, he should be brought before the Magistrate and the confession should be taken by him after taking care that no policeman was present in Court. Although the section does not say anything as to when the accused can be brought before the Magistrate after he shows his willingness to confess, there is no doubt on general principles that the accused must be sent to magisterial custody as soon as he expresses such willingness. It may be) that the police might not have at that time started any investigation or that the investigation might be incomplete, but, in my opinion, there is no justifiable reason why the police should keep an accused person in their custody for several days after they know that he wanted to confess, merely on the ground that his presence was necessary for further investigation. As observed by the Calcutta High Court in Emperor v. Panchkowri Dutt (1924) I.L.R. 52 Cal. 67 (p. 94) :-
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rangappa Hanamappa And Anr. vs State on 8 September, 1953

18. The judgment of . Mr. Justice Mukerji in - 'Emperor v. Panchkari Dutt' has been cited by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment in support of his conclusion that the confessions in question are inadmissible, and indeed the said judgment is referred to in some of the reported judgments also for the same purpose. When we examine the judgment, however, it appears to be clear that Mr. Justice Mukerji did not decide the question as to whether a confession which is recorded without complying with the provisions of Section 164(3) Is admissible or not. The admissibility of the confession was challenged before Mr. Justice Mukerji on two grounds. The first was that the confession was involuntary and the second was that it had not been recorded as required by Section 164(3).
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raggha vs Emperor on 5 June, 1925

As already stated, the conviction of the appellant is mainly, though not entirely, based on the confession of the appellant. A confession in a criminal case is another name for an admission in a civil case. Both are dealt with in the Evidence Act and under Section 31 of that Act an admission is not conclusive. Indeed, so far as a confession goes, a special section has been enacted in the Act. It is Section 24. The language used will show that to reject a confession it is not necessary that there should be positive proof to establish that the confession has been obtained by use of threat, persuasion, etc. It has been held in many cases, the last case on the point may be quoted as Emperor v. Panchkowri Dutt A.I.R. 1925 Cal. 587, that anything from a barest suspicion to positive evidence would be enough for a confession being discarded. The weight, therefore, that has to be attached to a confession, in the view of the Legislature, is small. Such is all the more the case where, as in this case, the confession was withdrawn at the earliest possible opportunity. The reason for the rule is not far to seek. It is difficult indeed to believe why a person accused of a guilt should confess at all without some undue inducement even if he be really guilty of the charge that has been brought against him. He does everything that lies in his power to conceal the crime he is going to commit. He takes all possible precaution to make the result of his action disappear and irrecoverable. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to believe why a man should confess at all unless he has some inducement. There are indeed some cases in which a man would be so very careless of his life and his determination so strong that he would after committing the crime, himself go to the authorities and give himself up and hand over the instrument of the crime. But such cases are rare. In the majority of cases a culprit tries his best to hide his crime and to escape punishment. In this particular case, it will be noticed, every attempt was made to do away with the dead body. The appellant did not appear before the Sub-Inspector till several days had elapsed between the murder and the appearance of the Sub-Inspector on the spot. Under the circumstances, the confession of the accused person is not a thing which is entirely normal. I must not be misunderstood, and I do not for a moment suggest that there is anything on the record which shows that the confession should be rejected in accordance with Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. If that had been the case, I would have acquitted the man entirely-But what I do mean to say is this that a confession in its normal state, is an entirely suspicious article. A retracted confession is worse.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Kasimuddin And Ors. vs Emperor on 24 August, 1934

In Emperor v. Panchkari Dutt, 1925 Cal 587 the same learned Judge was dealing with the question of admissibility. In the present case the learned Judge was in error in entirely withdrawing from the jury the consideration of the question whether the confession of Kasimuddin was voluntary or not. Had the jury been directed to consider this question in its bearing on the truth of the confession they would have seen that the so Called corroboration was of no material value. If the confession was a tutored one, the sort of corroboration that was sought to be proved in the case was of such a nature as could also be tutored since. It did not touch the identity of the criminal with reference to the crime.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bhabananda Banerjee And Anr. vs Emperor on 19 January, 1931

3. There is nothing to suggest that either accused would be readily cajoled or terrorised by the police or that the police would be likely to try such methods. In retracting their confessions the accused stated to the tribunal that the police told them what to say. Bhabananda says he was threatened and tortured by blows and slaps and pulling his hair. Naba says he was told he would be let off if he told the Magistrate that he had thrown the bomb and would not be tortured by the police. Before us their learned advocate abandoned these allegations of ill treatment but contended that the statements of the accused did not relieve the Court from considering whether upon other grounds the confessions should be excluded under Section 26, Evidence Act. With this proposition I entirely agree [Emperor v. Panchkaurie Dutt ], but the fact that the accused, willing to make out a grievance against what was done, put forward false and not very probable allegations, cannot be ignored when we are considering whether they were properly treated in this matter. In the present case neither accused had been in illegal custody for a single moment and the period of their police custody had been exceedingly short.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Srilal Agarwalla And Ors. vs Emperor on 1 April, 1926

In Emperor v. Panchkari Dutt , Mukerji, J., sitting in the Court of Session, observed, relying upon a decision of Walmsley, J., that the detention for an unlimited period of an offender by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, though not illegal because Section 61, Cr.P.C., does not apply to the Calcutta Police is improper, presumably on the ground that no such unlimited power exists. It is not necessary for the purposes of the present case to go to the length of supporting in full the proposition laid down there; but that case supports the view that Section 61, Cr.P.C, does not apply to the Calcutta ' Police, though the improper exercise of .
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next