EMPEROR Vs. KARIM DAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Jessore. The five accused Karim Dai, Akhej Sheikh Molla, Kiran Goshal, Matiar Rahaman and Esmail Molla were tried with two others under Section 395, I. P.C. The two others were acquitted by the learned Judge in agreement with the verdict of the jury. The jury found the five accused not guilty and the learned Judge being dissatisfied with this verdict has refused to accept it and has referred it to this Court as being perverse and against the weight of evidence. After they had given their verdict the learned Judge put these further questions to the jury. Q. What is your view of the occurrence? A. We think there was a theft and not a dacoity. Q. What leads you to take that view? A. Because no neighbours were produced as witnesses.

(2.) We know of no power given to the learned Judge to put questions to the jury after their verdict except those contained in Section 303, Criminal P.C. and under that section the only questions which can be put are such as are necessary to ascertain what their verdict is. That is to say, there must be some doubt in the Judge's mind as to what the jury mean by the verdict which they have given. There must be some ambiguity in the answer given by the jury. It certainly does not mean that the judge is entitled to question the jury about the reasons why they have found a particular verdict. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of a Criminal Bench presided over by Suhrawardy, J., in a ease of reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C. to the effect that it is necessary, advisable and useful, that a Judge should enquire what is the reason for the verdict of the jury. We know of no authority under the Code for this. It might be most useful in cases of reference under Section 307 that when there has been perversity in the verdict or something which looks like perversity some explanation of the verdict might be available for the Court. All that we can say is that we cannot find any authority in the Criminal Procedure Code for any such procedure. Those having been the answers given by the jury the learned Judge has referred this case.

(3.) Now the first thing that strikes one is, that upon the facts of this case the answers given by the jury are not at all unreasonable. In this house belonging to a man who has since died, and in which the witness Balaram and others ware living in a state of dependency on him it is suggested that there was a dacoity. This story depends largely upon the evidence of Balaram and the identification of the accused depends entirely upon him. There is evidence to support him that there was a dacoity because other witnesses saw parts of furniture and other things thrown about and other signs which might indicate that a dacoity had taken place and there was the further evidence that some of the goods, which it is suggested were taken away were found in the possession of Esmail. He gave an explanation of this by saying that they had been deposited with him by another of the suggested dacoits Mozam who was one of the two who have been acquitted.