STATE Vs. RAM LAKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Faizabad under Section 307, criminal P. C.

(2.) ON 20-4-1948 polling was held at Iltifatgan] School building in connection with the District board Elections. The two main parties in the field were the Congress Party and the Socialist party. It appears that at first there was some quarrel between the two parties and then a not broke out. Several persons received injuries. One Odaibhan Singh, Head Constable, was hit in the eye and lost it. Two cross cases were challaned by the police. We are concerned with only one of the cross cases in which the accused seemed to belong to the Socialist party and in this case 18 accuse were committed to stand their trial for offence under Sections 147, I, P. C. , 323 read with (sic) I. P. C. , 333 read with 149, I. P. C. , and 426 read with 149, I. P. C. They were tried with the aid of five jurors who acted as assessors also. Under Section 323 read with 149, I. P. C. , and 333 read with 149, I. P. C. , the trial was a jury trial. For these offences, the jury by a majority of four to one gave their verdict that only the four accused, viz Ram Lakhan Singh, Ayodhya, Hardwar Singh and Jabbar Khan were guilty. Under Section 426 read with Section 149, I. P. C. , their opinion as jurors was unanimous that none of them was guilty. The trial for the offence under Section 147, I. P. C. , was by the court with the aid. . . of the same persons as assessors. As assessors, the very same Jurors gave their opinion that none of the accused was guilty. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge agreed with the opinion given by the aforesaid persons as assessors and acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 147, I. P. C. He also agreed with the opinion of the jury so far as it related to the offence under Section 426 read with Section 149, I, P. C. , and acquitted the accused of that offence. So far as the trial under Sections 323 read with 149, I. P. C. , and 333 read with 149, I. P. C. , was concerned, he partly accepted the verdict of the jury, and acquitted all the accused except Ram lakhan Singh, Ayodhya, Hardwar, Singh and Jabbar Khan. But he did not agree with their verdict so far as these four accused were concerned. In his opinion these four persons should also have been acquitted. Consequently, he made the reference under Section 307, Cr. P. C. , which is before us.

(3.) THE reason, according to the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, why the accused Ram Lakhan singh, Ayodhya, Hardwar Singh and Jabbar Khan should not be held guilty under Sections 323/149, I P. C. , and Section 333/149, I. P. C. , was that the very same jurors had already expressed their unanimous opinion as assessors that the four accused were not guilty for the offence under Section 147, I. P. C. He further held that the opinion of the jury being against the weight of the evidence was perverse. He opined that out of the eighteen prosecution witnesses only four witnesses could be believed and the others could not be believed, and if reliance were placed on these four P. W's the jury had no material before them to discriminate between the different accused and to hold the four accused as being guilty and the rest not being guilty. For all these reasons the learned Assistant sessions Judge considered that the verdict of the jury was perverse.