HARADHAN SARKAR Vs. GODHAN SHEIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this case were tried by Shri P.C. Roy Choudhury, Sessions Judge of Birbhum with the aid of a jury. There were two charges against each of the opposite parties, namely, one under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and the other under Section 304/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge in agreement with the unanimous verdict of not guilty returned by the jury acquitted the opposite parties of both the charges.

(2.) Of the several grounds taken by the complainant petitioner in support of the Rule, Mr. Amal Kumar Basu, has referred to only one, namely, that the learned Judge did not take the verdict of the jury in respect of each of the charges against each individual accused and as such the order that followed was illegal. What happened appeared to be this. The jury was asked to state first if they were unanimous and then what their verdict was with regard to each of the accused persons. What the learned Judge did not ask the jury was : what their verdict was with respect to each of the charges of which the opposite parties were tried.

(3.) Section 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the jury shall return a verdict on all the charges on which the accused is tried and the Judge may ask them such questions as are necessary to ascertain what their verdict is. There is no doubt that verdict is to be taken upon each charge separately. In this case the jury were asked in a lump about the verdict and as such the verdict is faulty. In a Special Bench case of the Bombay High Court presided over by Stone C.J., Sen and Dixit JJ., Yeshwant Tukaram Salunka v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1947 Bom 146 the verdict on all the charges was not taken separately, and it was held by their Lordships that Section 303(1) was infringed and as there was a clear infringement of the mandatory provision of Section 303 because the jury in each case had only returned a single verdict on two charges, such a verdict could not be sustained. In the case of In re:, Virumandithevan, AIR 1928 Mad 207, it was hold by the Madras High Court presided over by Devadass and Madhavan Nair JJ. that in a jury trial the charges upon which the accused were to be tried and upon which they were likely to be convicted should be specifically mentioned and the verdict of the jury should be taken on each such charge.