DHANIRAM BHAIYALAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to the supreme Court under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the application are these. Six accused persons, namely, sultansingh, Saboo, Bisram, Laxman, Suratsingh and Durga, were prosecuted in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, under Sections 452, 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code for having entered the house of Achhelal on the night between the 6th and 7th August 1958 and for having committed dacoity therein, armed with deadly weapons. One other accused, Dhaniram, was charged under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code in the same Court in relation to the same dacoity. The latter offence, namely, under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, was triable by a jury, while the other offences, namely, under Sections 452, 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, were triable by the judge himself.

(3.) THE offences under Sections 452, 395 and 897 of the Indian Penal Code, with which the six accused were charged, were tried by the judge himself, while the offence under Section 412 of the Indian. Penal Code, with which the accused dhaniram, was charged, was tried by him with the help of a jury. The procedure at the trial for both classes of offences up to the point of summing up was the same. Thereafter, the judge summed up the case for the jury with respect to the offence with which Dhaniram was charged and recorded their verdict. The jury held the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 412 of the Indian, Penal Code but gave a unanimous opinion that he Was guilty of an offence under Section 411, ibid. The judge thereafter convicted him under Section 411 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. As regards the trial of the other accused, it was wholly conducted by the judge himself and we are not concerned with that part of the trial here.