Emperor v. Krishna Ravji Gaikar

Per Curiam:— In this case we think we must set aside the conviction. It appears that Shaukru, one of the witnesses, whose names had been mentioned in the original complaint by the complainant, was made an accused after he had given his evidence to a certain extent, and that is a circumstance highly calculated to intimidate other witnesses. We think that the case referred to in Queen-Empresss v. Bhogilal (1) applies. Again, the evidence of the very first witness in the case ought not to have been admitted at all.

2. Under these circumstances, we think, we must set aside the conviction of, and sentence upon, accused No. 1. Accordingly we direct the first accused to be discharged forthwith.