DINABANDHU ROUT AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the joint trial and conviction of the Appellants in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge of Cuttack and they will be dealt with in one judgment.

(2.) THE Appellants and twenty -nine other persons were committed for trial to the Court of Sessions for offences under Sections 147, 148,823, 426 and 448, Indian Penal Code. Some of these offences, namely those under Sections 426 and 448 were triable by Jury and the remaining offences were triable with the aid of assessors. The learned Additional Sessions Judge of Cuttack, therefore empaneled five persons as jurors for the trial of the offences under Sections 426 and 448 Indian Penal Code. Those jurors gave an unanimous verdict of "Not guilty" and the learned Judge accepted their verdict and acquitted the accused persons of those offences. The same jurors, as assessors, gave divergent opinions as regards the guilt or otherwise of the Appellants and other persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge agreed with them in respect of some of the Appellants, but disagreed with them in respect of others. Then, without writing a proper judgment he observed that it was unnecessary for him to recapitulate all that he had mentioned in his charge to the Jury. He then convicted them under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and passed sentences of imprisonment.

(3.) THIS point is so clear on a mere scrutiny of the relevant Sections of the Code Criminal Procedure that it is unnecessary to discuss it at some, length. I may however refer to : A.I.R 1938 Cal 551,. and two recent pronouncements of the Privy Council in, A.I.R 1948 P.C. 81 and, A.I.R. 1948 P.C. 184. Doubtless those two decisions of the Privy Council arose out of Cases from Fiji but the relevant provisions of the Fiji Code Criminal Procedure are almost identical with the corresponding provisions of our Code Criminal Procedure and the principles laid down by the Privy Council would apply with full force.