Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Section 374 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 145 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 288 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 167 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Abdul Salim And Ors. vs Emperor on 14 November, 1921
The provisions contained in Section 418 (2) are significant! and become important in this "context. Sub-section (1) of Section 418 provides that an appeal may lie on a matter of fact as well as a matter of law, except where the trial was by jury, in which case the appeal shall lie on a matter of law only. Sub-section (2) of Section 423 introduces a further limitation on the powers of this Court in dealing with the jury's verdict by enacting that nothing contained in that Section will authorise the Court to alter or reverse the verdict of a jury, unless it is of opinion that such verdict is erroneous owing to a misdirection by the Judge, or to a misunderstanding on the part of the jury of the law as laid down by him. In this context if Sub-section (2) of Section 418 is read, then it seems clear that the Legislature intended that the case of a person convicted in the same trial at which a person is sentenced to death, has to be differently treated and the limitation imposed by Sub-section (2) will not be attracted to such a case. If that is how a co-accused of a condemned prisoner is to be dealt with, there can be no question that a person actually condemned to death is to be treated in the same way, at least not less preferentially than his co-accused upon whom the extreme penalty of the law has not been passed. The only limitation on the powers of this Court in dealing with a reference for confirmation of the sentence of death is to be found in Section 537 which says that subject to the other provisions of the Code, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered under Chapter XXVII on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the proceedings before or during trial or on account of any misdirection in any charge to a jury unless such error, omission, irregularity, or misdirection has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. In this view, the provisions contained in Chapter XXVII appear to be quite exhaustive; they constitute a complete Code.
1