GOVT. Vs. LAKHI KANTA MEDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal made by the Government Advocate of Assam on behalf of the Province of Assam under Section 417, Criminal P. C, in a ease in which 9 accused persons, viz., (l) Lakhikanta Medhi, (a) Bahiram Medhi, (3) Subharam Das, (4) Hargovinda Medhi, (6) Khili -ram Medhi, (6) Hansaram Medhi, (7) Naroram Medhi, (8) Bapuram Medhi, and (9) Panimal Medhi, were tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Assam Valley Districts, with the aid of a jury. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury brought a verdict of acquittal and the learned Judge, agreeing with the unanimous verdict of the jury, acquitted the accused. The present appeal has been brought against the acquittal of these accused persons.

(2.) THE grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal ate these : l) That the learned Sessions Judge misdirected the jury in not marshalling the facts and law in an intelligible way enabling the jury to come to a just verdict. (2) That the learned Judge should have placed the evidence against each of the accused in respect of each charge framed against him, By omitting to do so, the learned Judge left the jury in a confused mass of evidence compelling them to give a verdict of benefit of doubt. This omission amounts to a misdirection. (3) That the learned Judge misdirected the jury by placing before them a defence story which was not set up by any of the accused. (4) That the occurrence took place in an open field and broad day light and as many as u eye -witnesses proved the prosecution case. Hence the verdict of the jury is not only perverse, but it is against the weight of clear and cogent evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses. (5) That from the verdict of jury it is apparent that they did not understand the charge of the learned Judge and could not apply their mind in assessing the evidence against each of the accused. Hence they returned a verdict of benefit of doubt. (6) That the charge of the learned Judge was meagre, vague and not comprehensive and the same has occasioned a failure of justice. (7) The learned Judge did not explain Section 804, Penal Code clearly. (8) In explaining the right of private defence, the learned Judge did not direct the jury to consider whether the accused Cr any of them exceeded the right of private defence. (9) That on the whole the charge to the jury in both points of law and facts were halting and misleading.

(3.) IT is alleged that on Cr about 10th of August 1947, Subharam who was then standing on a road, was forcibly removed to his father's house by his relatives. Three days later on 18th of August 1947, while the accused Bahiram and Subharam were ploughing Lakhiram's field, Tikaram the father of Subharam was noticed coming towards the field of Lakhiram, whereupon Bahiram made an assault on Tikaram accusing Tikaram for detaining Subharam in his own house. Tikaram raised an alarm which attracted to the scene the deceased Hansaram with 3 other persons who were engaged in ploughing a field a short distance away. When the deceased Hansaram and his 3 companions -came to the rescue of Tikaram, one Noraram, another called Khili who were also ploughing a field in the neighbourhood, ran to their village and brought with them some 13 Cr 11 persona -including the accused persons in the case. They were all armed with lathis, spears, daos, and other weapons. They were joined by accused Bahiram and Subharam. Deceased Hansaram then appealed to the accused persons to refraio from fighting. The accused persons, however paid no heed to the entreaties of Hansaram: accused Lakhiram, father of the girl with whom Subharam was carrying on an intrigue, struck the deceased Hansaram with a lathi in the region of his chest: accused Bahiram struck him on the shoulder and, as Hansaram attempted to ward off further attack, he was stabbed by accused Hargovinda in the neck, and Khiliram stabbed him in the back. As a result of the injuries, Hansaram collapsed and died almost immediately. In this attack upon Hansaram,. some of the prosecution witnesses and the accused? were also injured.