SAGAR CHANDRA SAHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and several others were tried upon divers charges by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Burdwan sitting with a Jury. The Jury returned a majority verdict of guilty under Section 304, part II of the J.P.C. as against the appellant. By a similar verdict the Jury also found him guilty under Section 324 of the I. P. C. The learned Judge accepted these verdicts, convicted the appellant of the relative offences and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years in respect of the offence under Section 304, part II and to two years in respect of the offence under Sec, 324 of the I. P. C. The Jury returned verdicts of 'not guilty' as against the rest.

(2.) According to the Prosecution, the genesis of the trouble was a rude remark which the appellant was said to have made to one Annakali, P. W. 9. The attack which appears to have been wanton resulted in the death of Radhapada. There is no doubt that there was a real not and that several others participated in the rioting, notwithstanding the acquittal of the appellant's co-accused. In view of the order we propose to make, it is not necessary to go into the detail's of the Prosecution case.

(3.) The defence was a denial of the appellant's complicity in the crimes concerned. It was also the defence case that the occurrence, if any, took place on the verandah and in the Court-yard of the appellant's house. Needless to say that the defence called no evidence but relied mainly upon suggestions made in the course of the cross-examination of certain Prosecution witnesses. The learned Judge invited the Jury to consider the question whether the occurrence had taken place at the house of the complainant or at the house of the appellant. Yet, the learned Judge was minded to tell the Jury that none of the exceptions to Section 300 had any application to the facts of the case. Accordingly, the learned Judge gave no direction to the Jury as to whether a plea of the right of private defence was open to the appellant. We think that we should set out below material parts of the learned Judge's summing up bearing on the question whether, the occurrence had taken place at the house of the complainant or at the house of the appellant. At page 180 of the paper-book the learned Judge observed :