STATE Vs. SOVARANI GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule has arisen in rather unusual circumstances and is directed upon the District Magistrate of Midnapore and on the accused opposite party Sovarani Ghose to show cause why the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Midnapore on 24-3-1958, in Sessions Trial Case No. 8 of November, 1957, should not be set aside and a retrial ordered.

(2.) Sovarani Ghose, the opposite party, was on her trial before the Judge and a Jury consisting of seven persons on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial proceeded from day today from 10-3-1958, until 14-3-1958, when the examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was concluded. At that stage on behalf of the defence a petition was filed in court praying for the discharge of the present Jury on the ground of misconduct. The alleged misconduct was that one Bepin Behary Dutt, said to be an elder brother of Bijan Behary De for whose alleged murder the trial against Sovarani was proceeding, met two of the gentlemen of the Jury, Sri Gopal Chandra Maity and Sri Bama Pada Sabud and commenced talking with them. This was seen by the lawyers of both sides who were then passing along in two separate rickshaws. They warned Bepin Behary Dutt not to speak with the Jurors in that way. Gopal Chandra Maity, who happened to be the Foreman, said that so far as the case was concerned Bepin Dutt told him (the Foreman) that the real culprits in the case were the two Prosecution witnesses Sankar and Motilal. Bepin asked Gopal Maity and the other Juror Bamapuda Sabud to see that justice was properly done. Bamapada however said that he could not quite catch as to what Bepin had said as he fell a little behind having been engaged in answering a call of nature. The learned Judge held an enquiry and came to the conclusion on the facts stated above that there was no justification for discharging the Jury under the inherent power of the court. The learned Public Prosecutor beyond drawing the attention of the Judge to what he had seen, did not pray for the discharge of the Jury. The defence also does not appear to have pressed for the discharge of the Jury. The learned Judge, in the order sheet of the case, observed that he would proceed with the trial with the present set of jurors but would give them the necessary caution in the context of the facts in his charge to the Jury. The trial then concluded with the acquittal of the accused Sovarani following a majority verdict of six to one of 'not guilty' with which the learned Judge agreed.

(3.) The learned Judge, however, made a reference to this Court for dealing with the aforesaid Bepin Behary Dutt under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1956. While dealing with the matter arising out of the learned Judge's reference under the Contempt of Courts Act Mitter and Bhattacharyya JJ. issued the present Rule suo motu in the following terms :