070-NLR-NLR-V-23-RATNAIKE-v.-BANDA.pdf
( 206 )
1221.
Present: De Sampayo J.
RATNAIKE v. BANDA.089—P. C. Qampola, 4,818.
Unqualified admission of gmli—Criminal Procedure Code, s.. 188.
The second accused in answer to the charge said: “Iplead guilty.If Appavu states I took part, I can only plead guilty.” Appavudid not give evidence in the case. The Magistrate convicted theaccused on his own plea.
Hdd, that this was not an unqualified admission of guilt, andthat the case should have been h aard against him on the footing thathe did not plead guilty. The evidence led in the case against thethird accused after the conviction of the second cannot be takeninto consideration as against the second accused.
npHS tacts appear from the judgment.
X
Bartholomeusz, for appellant.
December 14, 1921. De Sampayo J.—
I am afraid the conviction of the second accused cannot stand.The three'accused in the case were charged with having robbed oneAppavu Kangany of a sum of Rs. 971, and with having causedhurt to the kangany in the course of the robbery. At first only thefirst and second«accused appeared, and whencalled upon to plead,the first accused pleaded guilty, and the second accused pleaded asfollows : “ I plead guilty. If Appavu Kangany states I took part,. I can only plead guilty.” The Magistrate at once convicted thefirst and second accused on their pleas" of guilty. The case thenproceeded against the third accused, and certain evidence was called,with the result the third accused was acquitted for want of properevidence of identification. It was then pointed out by the proctorfor the second accused that the second accused’s plea did notamount to an unqualified admission of guilt, and that his convictionwas therefore wrong. The Magistrate, however, did not make anyalteration in his proceedings or in the verdict, and remarked that thecondition mentioned in second accused’s plea was amply satisfiedby the evidence heard against the third accused. I do notthink this as an answer to the objection. The case should havebeen heard against the second accused on the footing that he did notplead guilty in the sense of the provision in the Criminal ProcedureCode. Moreover, Appavu Kangany was not called at any stage ofthe proceedings, and I cannot understand how the qualified state-ment of the second accused can be said to have been satisfied in theabsence of Appavu Kangany as a witness.
The conviction of the second accused is set aside, and the casesent back for further and proper proceedings.
Set aside.