THE STATE Vs. DINANATH DAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, L. A. D., under Section 307, Criminal P.C., in the case of one Diuanath Das and 8 others who were tried by the learned Judge under Sections 148, 302 read with Sections 34, 324 and 323,1, P.C. with the aid of a Jury which unanimously found the accused not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge declined to accept the verdict of the Jury and has made this reference in the interests of justice.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that a certain piece of land comprising some 32 or 35 bighas was reclaimed by one Bilu, Loro, Malia, Bhatia and Tithi Sutradhar 3 or 4 years before the occurrence which is said to have taken place in the afternoon of 30 -11 -1948; they took possession of the land and divided it amongst them. selves; on the day in question, they were cutting paddy grown by them in their respective plots when the 9 accused persons, along with some SO or 30 others, came armed with deadly weapons, trespassed upon the land in order to take forcible possession of it and made an attack upon them; in the course of the attack, accused Dinanath, Ranga, Sarbeswar and Gabru killed one Loro and the remaining accused caused hurt to Bilu, Bhati Maya and Malia. The F. I. R, was lodged at the Police Station within 7 hours of the occurrence by the injured Malia. The Police investigated the case and sent up the 9 accused persona for trial.

(3.) THE question of actual possession was a simple one of fact and as the Jury had before it documentary evidence which tended to discredit the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we do not think that the Jury's conclusion on the question of actual possession was so erroneous as to justify a reference. In his summing up to the Jury, the learned Judge left the question of possession entirely to the Jury and gave no indication of his view which he has subsequently expressed in the reference. In course of his summing up, the learned Judge stated: