Umrao v. Emperor (PC) BS283958
PRIVY COUNCIL

(FROM LAHORE).

Before:-Lords Dunedin, Atkinson And Sumner And Sir John Edge.

D/d. 17.11.1924.

Umrao - Appellant

Versus

Emperor - Respondent.

Solicitors for Petitioner :- T.L. Wilson and Co.;

Solicitors for the Crown, Solicitor, India Office.

Cases Referred :-

In re Dillet 12 App Cas 459 : 56 LT 615 : 36 WR 81 : 16 Cox CC 241.

Vaithinatha Pillai v. The King-Emperor, (1913) 36 Mad 501 : 40 IA 193 : 17 CWN 110 : 14 MLT : 26325 MLJ 518 : 11 ALJ 881 : 18 CLJ 365 : (1913) MWN 806 : 14 CLJ 577 : 21 IC 369 : 15 Bom LR 910 (PC).

JUDGMENT

Lord Dunedin :- This is a petition for special leave to appeal against a sentence of death pronounced on the petitioner by the Sessions Judge of Shahpur and confirmed by the High Court at Lahore.

2. The petitioner, with others, organised a robbery in the house of a money-lender. They broke into the house at night and took ornaments, money and other things from the wife who was in the house (the money-lender himself being absent). Other persons arriving on the scene, two of the gang stationed on the roof fired shots and killed two persons. The conviction pronounced against the petitioner and four others was for the murder of these persons.

3. One Misri, one of the party, made a statement to the police, in which he detailed the incidents of the robbery and incriminated the various accused, including the petitioner. The admission of this statement was objected to by the vakil for the petitioner, but it was admitted by the Sessions Judge, and this admission was confirmed by the High Court. The ground for the present application is that the ad mission of the statement was clearly wrong and that the improper admission of this evidence amounted to a grave injustice and a violation of the principles of natural justice, and especial reference was made to the case of Vaithinatha Pillai v. The King-Emperor, (1913) 36 Mad 501 : 40 IA 193 : 17 CWN 110 : 14 MLT : 26325 MLJ 518 : 11 ALJ 881 : 18 CLJ 365 : (1913) MWN 806 : 14 CLJ 577 : 21 IC 369 : 15 Bom LR 910 (PC).

4. Their Lordships find that in the judgment of the High Court one of the learned Judges, while dealing with the point as to the admission of the evidence, expressed himself thus :

5. and the other learned Judge agreed with these remarks. In view of this it seems to their Lordships out of the question that leave to appeal should be granted, as to do so would be to turn this Board into a Court of criminal appeal, a position which it has been again and again explained the Board will not assume. But, in view of the judgments given and the argument raised thereon, their Lordships feel constrained to add something more. The question of the admissibility of the evidence turned entirely on the interpretation of certain sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Act. According to the view taken of these sections the evidence was or was not admissible. Now, although if there has been any departure from the ordinary rules of procedure such as to amount to a denial of ordinary justice, of which an illustration is given in Pillai's case their Lordships will interfere yet where the matter depends upon the particular view taken of sections of an Indian Act their Lordships could not say that to assert that upon those sections the Judge had come to a wrong conclusion is tantamount to saying that there has been substantial and grave injustice done. Even, therefore, if there had not been the expression of opinion above quoted that the other evidence was sufficient, their Lordships would not have held that the so-called miscarriage of justice in respect of a wrong interpretation of the sections as to the proper interpretation, their Lordships have not formed and express no opinion - is such as to bring the case within the rules laid down in In re Dillet 12 App Cas 459 : 56 LT 615 : 36 WR 81 : 16 Cox CC 241, and insisted upon in subsequent cases.

6. Their Lordships are, therefore, unable to advise the Sovereign to grant special leave to appeal.

Application rejected.