INATULLA SARKAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of Mymensing to show cause why the Criminal Appeal No. 91(a) of 1923 filed in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge should not be re-heard, or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

(2.) When the rule came on for hearing the learned Vakil in support of the Rule was heard at considerable length. No cause was shown on behalf of the Crown. An explanation was submitted by the Additional District Magistrate of Mymensing, in which nothing was said about the question of the re-hearing of the appeal.

(3.) It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge had failed to come to an independent decision of his-own upon the evidence adduced in this, ease and that his judgment was not in; accordance with law. The judgment complained against ran as follows : I had the misfortune to preside over the trial of the counter case. Appellants pleader, however, declines to move for a transfer- He argues that the lower Court's judgment is largely in favour of the accused, that it was not the appellants who had the main reason for enmity, and that the Court finds that complainant's party first attacked the appellants. He also urges that the man shot was no enemy of the appellants. It is however not always the man actually aimed at who gets hit, while on the other hand when persons are roused, there is apt to be little discrimination between enemies and neutrals. I have considered the medical evidence and I do not conclude that the alleged gunshot wounds are self-inflicted or anything but gunshot wounds. It is urged with some reason that the man named as having fired the gun was admitted in appellants ejahar to have been present, whereas he has brothers and had he been the culprit, he could have been omitted. This argument is not conclusive and in any case the lower Court's sentences make the matter one not worth discussing. The lower Court's judgment is extremely carefully thought out and very reasonably fits in with the evidence given. I see no reason to differ from him, and no reason for upsetting his findings of a separate and successive riot nor his sentences. The appeal is dismissed and appellants must surrender to their bail.