MOTIRAM GANPAT KOLI AND OTHERS Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by five accused, and this judgment will also dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 292, 293 and 294 of 1941 by three others, who are all represented by the same counsel and whose cases have been argued together. The appellants are accused Narhar (No. 1), Motiram (No. 2), Somnath (No. 7), Deoman (No. 8), Narayan (No. 21), Babarao (No. 27), Rangnath (No. 28) and Dattatraya (No. 29). One more accused Mahadeo was convicted, but he has not appealed. The convictions are in respect of conspiracy to commit dacoities, the committing of certain specified dacoities and for breaches of the Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act. Except for the last the trial was held with the aid of a jury whose verdict against these appellants was unanimous. It is recognized by learned Counsel that he can only succeed on the ground of misdirection, which further must be proved to have operated to the prejudice of the accused. In his argument he has pressed 6nly what he considers two substantial misdirections, and he has also raised a further point that the charge should have been delivered extemporaneously.

(2.) IN this case 29 accused in all were involved, In para. 46 of the charge the Judge observes that the evidence indicates four groups amongst the accused persons, which may be called Patulda, Akot, Anandswami and Akola groups. learned Counsel says that it was essential for the Judge to put to the jury that they had to find that there was one conspiracy involving all the accused and not four separate conspiracies involving 'these four groups. In this connexion Mohammad Ismail v. Emperor A.I.R. 1936 Nag. 97 is referred to. We do not find anything substantial 'in this argument. The Judge in para. 2 of his charge and elsewhere had made it clear that the prosecution case was that all the 29 accused persons along with the approver Gotiram and the two abscoriding accused had entered into a conspiracy to Commit dacoities and robberies, and that in pursuance of the said-conspiracy six dacoities and one; robbery, specified, were committed. As the jury were directed to find the existence of one comprehensive conspiracy that by implication means that the existence of four unrelated conspiracies could not satisfy the charge. The Judge has further in referring to the evidence of association, etc., shown how far the various groups are inter-connected, and he has also indicated that they derive their inspiration from one leader Narhar. It is of course quite consistent with the prosecution case that in carrying out their common purpose of committing dacoities the conspirators may have split up into groups in actually carrying out the various dacoities.

(3.) IT is true that the Judge might have expanded this sentence by giving instances of material particulars; but it was not essential for him to do so at that point. In para. 18 he has warned the jury that the material points must implicate the individual accused, and in dealing with the various dacoities he has pointed out the particulars such as identity and participation involving each of those charged. Where there is no evidence of identification for example, apart from the testimony of the approver he has said so; for instance, in para. 55 of the charge in dealing with the Senad dacoity. It has not been contended that there is in fact no corroboration On material particulars in the case of any of the convicted persons, so that it cannot reasonably be said that the accused were prejudiced because this point was not dilated upon sufficiently; The third point taken is that the charge to the jury should have been delivered viva voce, and as a written charge was read out it is invalid. Section 297, Criminal P.C., simply says that the Court shall proceed to charge the jury, summing up the evidence for the prosecution and defence, and laying down the law by which the jury ought to be guided. It does not say either that the charge should, be reduced to writing or that it should be delivered extempore. The reading out of a written charge therefore does not violate any provision of the section. Further in the Criminal Circulars of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces--Circular No. 1-25, 13--it was said: It is not necessary that the direction to the jury should be reduced to writing before delivery although it is usually desirable.