RMUNISWAMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted both under Section 302 I.P.C. as well as under Section 392 I.P.C in Bangalore Sessions Case No. 32 of 1958 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore. For the offence of robbery he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and for the offence of murder he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. He challenges the correctness of his convictions as well as the sentences imposed on him.

(2.) The offence under Section 392 I.P.C. was tried by the learned Sessions Judge with the aid of a jury, whereas the offence under Section 300 I.P.C. was tried by him.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge has not discussed the evidence in considering the case of the accused under see. 302 I.P.C. He merely relied on his charge to the Jury. The charge to -the Jury is very short but can hardly be said to be adequate; It is undoubtedly lacking in details and has failed to comply with the requirements of law. The prosecution case is that the accused decoyed the deceased Lourda Mary alias Lourdamma Mary on the night of 16-11-1958 and robbed and murdered her. We shall presently quote the relevant portions of the charge to the Jury to show how inadequate it is. But before doing so we may mention that at no stage of the address to the Jury the learned Sessions Judge took pains to explain to the Jury the elements of the offences with which, the accused were charged. We shall say something more about this aspect at a later stage. Now we shall proceed to consider the charge to the Jury. The relevant portions are found in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the charge.