GEDENG SUT AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two applications for issue of certificates under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India to the effect that the cases are fit ones for appeal to the Supreme Court. The two applications are on behalf of two accused persons who were jointly tried in the Court of Session by the Sessions Judge, U. A. D. with the help of Jury. The jury returned a verdict of guilty under Section 304, Part I, read with Section 34, I. P. C. against both the accused persons. The learned Judge, however, differed with the jury as to the verdict of guilty against accused Kandura and he accordingly made a reference under Section 307(1), Criminal P. C. to the High Court.

(2.) IN this matter, the main contention raised on behalf of the two petitioners is that the learned Sessions Judge did not follow a correct procedure in the matter of charging the jury twice after they had once returned a comprehensive verdict. What happened is that after the jury had returned a verdict in the following words "We have found Gedeng and Kandura guilty under Section 304, Part I, I. P. C., we have found Fedua and Saniram not guilty of the charge", the learned Judge asked the foreman, a further question, - -"Have you found accused Gedeng and Kandura guilty under Section 304, Part I, I. P. C, because of different blows given by each of them or under that section read with Section 34, I. P. C." The Foreman answered, - -"We have found them guilty under Section 304, Part I, I. P. C. read with Section 34, I. P. C. and we have also held that they have exceeded the right of private defence."

(3.) THE next point for consideration is whether the case comes under Section 134(1) (c) of the Constitution of India by virtue of any exceptional or special circumstances involved in this case. In - -'Chowthmal Sharma v. Hiralal Patni', AIR 1951 Gau 38 the view of this Court as to the issue of certificate under Section 134(1)(c) has been clearly elucidated and in the words of my learned brother Ram Labhaya J.: