Last Updated on
1. We are unable to accept the contention that there has been any misdirection in the summing up.
2. The evidence seems to have been put very fairly before the jury and the suggestion that certain evidence put in to contradict, should have been pointed out to the jury, as put in merely for the purpose of contradicting, seems to us to be hypercritical, because the object for which that evidence was put in must have been obvious when it was put in. It also must be borne in mind that everything said by the Judge to the jury does not necessarily appear in the heads of charge, and discussion as to the reasons for which the previous statements were put in, must have been inevitable, when that evidence was put in. Objection was taken under Section 164 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to the impropriety of recording a confession in which the questions relating to its voluntary character appeared at the end instead of at the beginning of the record. The word “record” must necessarily mean, ” making a part of a judicial record,” and not merely ” writing out.” Otherwise it would be necessary under the section that a Magistrate should record a confession to have been voluntarily made, before it was begun. This absurdity could not have been intended by the Legislature. Nor does the charge to the jury appear to be open to the further objections raised. The age of the complainant and other matters were left to the jury to determine. The findings of the jury thereon appear to us to be findings of fact, from which it is impossible to entertain objections in appeal in this Court. We see no ground for reducing the sentence.
3. We accordingly confirm the conviction recorded and sentence passed on the accused.