IFATULLA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in these two appeals were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge of Bogra and a jury of nine persons on charges under Secs.302 and 147, I. P.C. The case for the prosecution is briefly this : I fat Akonda, who is appellant in Appeal No. 595, with other persons went to the paddy land of one Hurmat and forcibly reaped the paddy, and some of them gathered in the khuli or yard of one Amir Mondal, being all armed with lathis and other weapons. Hurmat on his part collected soma people and went to his land. There was a quarrel and Kifat of the accused party said that Hurmat's cattle had damaged their paddy and that they would take his paddy as compensation for the damage and he told Hurmat to go back. Hurmat was retreating, when Baser of his party said: Why should we go back? We would take the bundles of paddy; and he advanced to seize the bundles. Thereupon I fat fired a gun from Amir Mondal's khuli and Baser, being hit, fell down and died immediately. The defence case is that Hurmat's men about 200 in number had gone to the jute land of the accused party and harvested jute worth Rs. 400. The accused party offered resistance and there was a scuffle. A gun was fired and it was found that it was in the hand of one Kajem of the prosecution party. The jury returned a verdict which was recorded by the learned Judge as follows: Question.-Are you unanimous ? Foreman:-Yes. Question.-What is your verdict ? Foreman.-We find Ifat guilty under Section 304, Part 1. We find all the accused except Ibra guilty under Section 147. We find Ibra not guilty under Section 147.

(2.) The learned Judge agreed with this verdict and convicted the appellant Ifat under Section 304, Part. 1 and Section 147, I. P. C, and under the former section he sentenced Ifat to transportation for life. He also convicted the other appellants under Section 147 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for periods varying from six months to one year.

(3.) The grounds that are urged in support of these appeals are grounds Nos. 26, 27 and 28, in Appeal No. 595. They are to the effect that the conviction has been invalidated by the fact that the verdict was not understood by the Judge, that the Judge had misapprehended the verdict and that at all events he ought to have referred the case to the High Court. It is contended, though it is not specifically mentioned in these grounds, that the jury meant to find the accused I fat guilty under Section 304-A, I. P.C. In support of this we are referred to certain things which happened and of which a note was made on the order sheet. Order 10 dated 15 June 1930, states: Trial resumed. The Court summed up the case and charged the jury who retired at 8-15 a. m. to consider their verdict and returned at 9-10 a. m. They unanimously found Ifat guilty under Section 304, Part 1, I. P. C, and all the accused including Ifat guilty under Section 147, I. P.C., except Ibra.