Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
Emperor vs Balaram Das on 23 June, 1921 cites

Gouridas Namasudra vs Emperor on 21 November, 1908

Our view is supported by the case of Gouridas Namasudra v. Emperor 2 Ind. Cas. 841 : 36 C. 659 : 13 C.W.N. 680 : 10 Cr.L.J. 186. There, the written petition of complaint which contained the statement made by the deceased person as to the cause of his death, was admitted in evidence on being proved by the Mukhtear's Mohurrir, who had prepared it under personal instructions, and who deposed that the deceased made the statement to him which was correctly recorded in the petition. The case for the prosecution is, that the deceased, Surendra Nath Das, belonged to a village which was six miles from the place of occurrence which was village Thoura, Police-station Bongong. A fortnight before the occurrence the deceased, who was on friendly terms with one Rasik who lived in Thoura, borrowed a plough and cattle from him. On the day of occurrence he returned the plough and cattle and was accompanied on his return by Gour Hari, P.W. No. 2, the son of Rasik, who was then a boy aged about 14. Rasik had gone to a different village and there was no one in Rasik's bari when they returned. Gour Hari gave the deceased a smoke, and after smoking Surendra took up a jug of water and set out for the field to attend nature's call. On his way he passed through the courtyard of the accused Balaram. Balaram was sitting in front of one of the houses of his bari. He suddenly attacked Surendra with a dao and gave him four cuts on the back of his head and neck in quick succession. Balaram ran off with the dao. A number of persons assembled and information was sent to the Police station by the Choukidar and Nitai, P.W. No. 1, brother of Gour Hari, and the First Information was laid the same night at 3-30 A.M. Surendra was sent to the Hospital the following evening where he made the statement to which reference has been made. This story is, firstly, supported by the evidence of Gour Hari, the only witness who says that he actually saw the occurrence. Jogendra, the brother of Rasik, came on the scene immediately afterwards, and found Surendra lying wounded, and heard from him and Gour Hari that Balaram had caused these injuries. Amongst these persons were two boys, Amulya and Dukhiram. Dukhiram died between the occurrence and the trial, and it is on his evidence, recorded under Section 512 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that very great reliance is placed on behalf of the accused. His statement is, that be came on hearing the cries of murder and rushed to the courtyard and saw Surendra lying wounded. He did not see Balaram there. He could not understand what Surendra said. Later on, he said that some one had seized him from behind whom he could not see. Amulya was examined at the trial and only desposes that he found Surendra lying wounded. He neither states nor denies that Balaram was named as the person who had wounded Surendra. The evidence is that after the occurrence Balaram absconded and was not seen for 3 1/2 years till he surrendered to the Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1