STATE Vs. GANESH SAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal P. C., by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur. He disagreed with the verdict of guilty of a majority of the jurors on the charge under Section 380, Indian Penal Code, framed against the accused, and has, therefore, submitted the case to this Court to be dealt with according to law. The grounds given for the reference arc "that the verdict of the majority of the jury is against the weight of the evidence and circumstances and is perverse" and "that no reasonable body of men could return a verdict of guilty on the evidence and circumstances of the present case".

(2.) The accused Dwarka Sahi is the son of the accused Ganesh Sahi and all the three accused are the residents of village Birpur situated within the jurisdiction of police station Kanti in the neighbourhood of another village Boaria situated within the jurisdiction of another police station Baruraj. The prosecution has alleged that on 25-10-1949 at about .10 or 11 a.m. accused Ganesh Sahi committed theft of a gramaphone, accused Dwarka Sahi of a harmonium and accused Pashupati Sahi of a trunk containing a gold 'hasuli' weighing seven to las, a pair of silver 'bajoos' weighing 25 tolas, a wrist watch, some kurtas, one chadar and Rs. 722/- in cash from the outer room of one Rajdhari Singh of village Boaria. Before this occurrence on the same day the accused persons are also alleged to have committed offence under Sections 144, 447, 379 and 436, Indian Penal Code, at the place of one Chengan Raut, about one fourth of a mile from the house of Rajdhari Singh, It is said that Rajdhari Singh and his neighbour one Benaras Singh had gone to extinguish the fire in the house of the said Chengan Raut, and while they were still there they got information from one Munshi Raut that their houses too were being looted. So both of them ran at once along with Munshi Raut towards their houses and saw the alleged occurrence and thereafter a similar occurrence in the house of Benaras Singh. The matter was reported to the police at police station Baruraj and on an investigation one common chargesheet was submitted in respect of all the three occurrences. A common preliminary enquiry under Chap. XVIII, Criminal P. C., was made in respect of all the three occurrences and in all 17 accused connected with the three occurrences were committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial for the offences charged against them. Thereafter the trial for each occurrence was held separately. It appears from the record that the case in relation to the occurrence at the house of Chengan Raut was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, and it ended in acquittal. The case connected with the occurrence at the house of Benares Singh and the present case in connection with the occurrence at the house of Rajdhari Singh were both sent to the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. The first has already been disposed of. In that the jury gave a verdict of not guilty and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in agreement with it ordered acquittal. In the second, out of which this reference arises, the jury gave a verdict of guilty by 3 : 2, as stated above.

(3.) The test laid down for referring the case to this Court under Section 307, Criminal P. C., by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is, no doubt, sound and correct. But the test, I am afraid, does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case of 'Ramanugraha Singh v. Emperor', 73 Ind App 174, their Lordships, while dealing with the duties and powers of a High Court Judge in India upon a reference under Section 307, Criminal P. C., have observed at p. 181 as follows :