STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. LAISAL HAQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Government of West Bengal and the complainant Mohd. Abu Bakkar Siddique Molla have come up in appeal by way of special leave, from the judgment and order of a Division Bench (Sukumar Chakravarty and Govinda Chandra Chatterjee, JJ.) of the High Court of Calcutta dated August 14, 1986 setting aside the finding and sentences recorded by Shri S. K. Mitra, Additional Sessions Judge, 24 Paraganas, 14th Court, Alipore dated April 4, 1985 in Sessions Trial No. 3(8) of 1983 directing retrial of the respondents before us 16 in number, on the ground of material defect in the framing of the charges which, according to the learned Judges, had occasioned in failure of justice. The High Court held that (1) -it appears from the heads of the charges framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the principal accused Laisal Haque was charged along with other accused persons under S. 302 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 alleging that in furtherance of the common object of killing the deceased Gulam Rabbani and injure others, all the rioters committed the murder of Gulam Rabbani. If such a charge was framed against all the accused persons including Laisal Haque, there was no warrant of framing a charge against the accused Laisal Haque under S. 302 simpliciter, 'without making that charge as an alternative charge. (2) The charge framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as against the accused persons was materially defective inasmuch as it was a 'rolled up charge', the common object of the unlawful assembly being to murder Golam Rabbani and injure others. The use of the words 'injure others' without specifically mentioning the names of the persons who were injured made the charge vague and indefinite. Instead the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have framed separate and distinct charges for the assault and causing of grievous hurt in respect of each of the persons assaulted. (3) The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge suffers from a serious infirmity in that he had in a slipshod manner not discussed at all the evidence separately under different heads of the charges framed against each of the Accused persons. While convicting the accused persons under S. 324 read with S. 149 he had not discussed which of the accused persons caused hurt to whom.

(2.) In the course of the judgment the learned Judges have quoted a portion of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge recording a finding of guilt, and observed:

(3.) It would be convenient at this stage to set out the charges framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which were in these terms: