STATE Vs. GEDENG SUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, U. A. D., under the provisions of Section 307 (1), Criminal P. C., arising out of a trial held with the aid of a Jury, in which two persons were found guilty unanimously by the Jury. Accused Gedeng Sut, who has appealed, was found guilty under Section 304, part I, Penal Code, read with Section 34, Penal Code, and the accused Kandura Sut was also found guilty under the same section read with Section 34, Penal Code. Two other accused persons who were also tried along with Gedeng Sut and Kandura Sut, were acquitted by the Jury. The learned Sessions Judge has made this reference being of the opinion that the verdict of the Jury against the accused Kandura is 'unreasonable, inconsistent and altogether' perverse.'

(2.) THE case for the prosecution was that on the morning of 1 -4 -1951, the deceased Molow Hazarika set out from his house with a plough and a buffalo to cultivate the land in the nearby chapari. He was accompanied by his brother -in -law Saruram Sut and a boy named Bhuban. On arrival at the land, they started to plough it. Shortly afterwards, it is alleged that the accused Gedeng Sut came there carrying a mit -dao and protested against the action of the deceased in ploughing the land which, he alleged, belonged to him, and demanded that the cattle be unyoked, whereupon a scuffle followed between the deceased and Gedeng, in which, it is said, Molow gave two blows to the accused Gedeng. Gedeng, on receiving the injuries, left the place and shortly afterwards returned with four other persons, shouting to the effect that Molow would be done to death that day. Gedeng Sut and Kandura Sut were armed with daos.

(3.) EVEN if the Jury believed that accused Kandura also dealt a dao blow on the deceased, then presumably the said blow being the blow at the back of the chest of the deceased, in view of the evidence of Dr. M. N. Sarma (P. W. 5) that he could not be definite if that blow was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased, they should have held him to be guilty under Section 326, Penal Code.'