EMPEROR Vs. RAFI MIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 307 of the Criminal P. C. by the Sessions Judge of Patna, relating to the verdict of the Jury in the case of three persons, namely Rafi Mian, Nasir Mian and Walayat Mian.

(2.) These three persons together with three others, namely, Didaran Mian, Siddiq Mian and Ismail Mian were tried for the murder of one Meghu Mian. The last three were acquitted by the Jury and the Sessions Judge accepted the verdict. The first three were also acquitted bat the Sessions Judge disagreed with the verdict and thought it necssaary to refer the matter to this Court in the interets of justice. In view of the arguments which have been addressed to us some explanation of the law relating to Jury trials is required. Under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the Judge disagrees with the verdict of the Jurors and is clearly of opinion that it is necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court, he shall submit the case accordingly, recording the grounds of his opinion, and when the verdict is one of acquittal, stating the offence which he considers to have been committed. Now it has long been held that the Sessions Judge should not so refer a case unless his dissent from the opinion of the Jury is such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary, for the ends of justice, to submit the case to the High Court, and where such complete dissent is not recorded the verdict of the Jury must stand. This was Said down by Sir M.R. Westropp, C.J. and Mr. Justice Helvill in Imperatrix V/s. Bhawani bin Panduji and Sakharam bin Khundaji 2 B. 525. That was a case of conviction by the Jury and the Sassions Judge disagreed with the verdict of the majority. He stated that as it is entirely a case depending on the appreciation of the evidence and the habits and customs of the natives, and as they must be more familiar with the motives which actuate these people, and what they would be likely to do, than a foreigner, the court refused to send up the case under Section 263 of the Act of 1872. The High Court refused to interfere with the decision.

(3.) Similarly in the case of Ramdas Rai V/s. King-Emperor 117 Ind. Cas. 173 : 10 P.L.T. 409 : 8 Pat. 344 : 30 Cr. L.J. 721 : A.I.R. 1929 Pat. 313; (1929) Cr. Cas. 99 the Sessions Judge in the case of a verdict of conviction had recorded his opionion as follows: I do not agree with the vedict. In my opinion none of the dacoits wan recognised at the time and all the prisoners should be acquitted. At the same time the Verdict of the majority is a reasonable verdict on the evidence and 1 accept it without hesitation,