066-NLR-NLR-V-46-APPUHAMY-Appellant-and-WIJESINGHE-Inspector-of-police-Respondent.pdf
Appuhamy and Wijesinghe.
189
1919Present: Wljeyewardene J.
APPUHAMY, Appellant, and WIJESINGHE, Inspector ofPolice, Respondent.
745-—M. C. Gampaha, 22,648.
Punishment—Charge of causing hurt with knife—Accused, a youth—Dutyof Magistrate to consider advisability of acting under chapter 36 of theCriminal Procedure Code.
The Magistrate, while sentencing the accused, aged 19, to 3 months’rigorous imprisonment for ceasing hurt with knife, said, '* Of lateknifing has increased considerably and it is, therefore, necessary to putit down with a firm hand The accused's offence fell, in fact, undersection 325 of the Penal Code, and not under section 315.
Held, that the Magistrate should have paid heed to the salutaryprinciples underlying the statutory provisions made for the release ofoffenders on probation under chapter 26 of the Criminal Procedure-Code.
G
^^PPEAXi from a conviction by the Magistrate of Gampaha.
(1935) 36 N. L. R. 358.
(1932) 1 C. L. W. 328.
ISO
WUEYEWABDENE J.—Appuhamy and Wijesinghe.
E. B. Wikremanayake (with him H. Wanigatunge), for the accusedAppellant.
E. H. T. Qunaaekere, C.C., for the Crown, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
February 9, 1945. Wijeybwardbne J.—
The accused was convicted on charges of causing hurt to one Jamisand committing theft of his purse containing Rs. 60. He was sentencedto three months’ rigorous imprisonment for each offence, the sentencesbeing made to run concurrently.
t
Jamis stated that he was a salesman in the boutique of his brother,Podimatmaya, and that accused came there on the day in questionand inquired for Podimahatmaya. On his replying that Podimahatmayawas away at Attanagalla, the accused stabbed him. As he ran towardsHeras’s boutique, he dropped his purse and the accused who was followinghim picked it and stabbed him again in Heras’s boutique. He suggestedthat the motive was the accused’s belief that he had told Podimahatmayathat the accused had stolen some poultry of Podimahatmaya some daysbefore this incident. Abilinu, a brother of Jamis, gave evidence regardingthe stabbing and theft. When questioned about the reason for thestabbing he made the somewhat strange statement, " Accused is anApplicant to join the police force; so some people spread the rumour thataccused had stolen fowls ”. Richard, a relation of Jamis, spoke aboutthe stabbing but did not refer to the theft. According to him, Jamiscomplained to him only about the stabbing.
The accused denied the charge of theft. He said that, as he was passingPodimahatmaya’s boutique, Jamis chased after him saying, “ Youstole the fowls ” and struck him on the head, while one of Jamis’sbrothers assaulted him and that he, thereupon, used his knife.
The Magistrate has not considered the question whether the accusedwas insulted in the way stated by him. It is difficult to believe that theaccused would have walked alone to the boutique deliberately some daysafter the alleged theft of fowls and stabbed Jamis there in the presenceof his brothers. It may be that the accused has given an exaggeratedaccount of the assault on him, but I think the version given by himregarding the circumstances which led to the stabbing is more probablethan that given by Jamis, I hold that the accused’s offence falls undersection 325 of the Penal Code and not under section 315 as found by theMagistrate.
The evidence in support of the charge of theft is not convincing. Itis admitted that “ the boutique money is usually kept in the drawer "and it does not seem to be likely that, a salesman would be carrying somuch as Rs. 60 of the boutique money in his waist. Commenting on the■charge of theft the Magistrate says, “ One is aware of people addingcharges of theft to simple cases pf assault in order to come into this courtinstead of going to the Village Tribunal, but this is not suoh a case.
WUUYJiWABDtXJi J.—Andri«hamy and Deonisliamy.
191
a charge of knifing is not triable by the V.T. ” The reason indicatedby the Magistrate is not, however, the only reason inducing a person toadd a false charge of theft to a charge of hurt.
' In sentencing the accused, a lad of 19 years, to 3 months’ rigorousimprisonment the Magistrate says, " Of late knifing has increasedconsiderably and it is, therefore, necessary to put it down with a firmband I think that in the circumstances of this case the Magistrateshould have tempered his determination to put down crime “ with afirm hand ” by paying heed to the salutary principles underlying thestatutory provisions made for the release of offenders on probation.
I set aside pro forma the conviction of the accused and direct him tobe discharged conditionally on his entering into a recognizance withone surety in a sum of Rs. 150 to be of good behaviour and to appear forconviction and sentence when summoned at any time during a periodof two years.
Order made under section 325,Criminal Procedure Code.