SADEK MANDAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is before us on a reference Under Section 374, Criminal P.C., and an appeal by the prisoner Sadek Mondal who has beed sentenced to death on a verdict Under Section 302, I.P.C. The prisoner was charged with an offence Under Section 302. The Sessions Judge in the course of his charge to the jury explained the offences of murder, culpable homicide not amounting to murder and grievous hurt, as he had to do. What transpired when the jury brought in their verdict would appear from the following record made by the learned Judge: The jury retired at 4-50 p.m. The jury returned at 5-15 p.m. To Foreman or the jury; Q. Are you unanimous? A. Yes. Q. What is your verdict? A. We find the accused Sadek Mondal guilty Under Section 304, I.P.C. Q. With what intention was the act committed? A. We have not considered the question of intention. Q. With what knowledge was the act committed? A. We have not considered the question of knowledge. Q. Would you care to be charged again in respect of the law? A. Yes. (The jury is charged once again in respect of the law.) The jury retired at 5-45 p.m. The jury returned at 5-52 p.m. Q. Are you unanimous? A. Yes. Q. What is your verdict? A. We find the accused guilty Under Section 302, I.P.C.

(2.) The learned Judge has made a note that the questions which he put to the jury after the verdict had been brought in Under Section 304, I.P.C., were asked by him in accordance with the instructions laid down in the Rules and Circular Orders of the High Court Vol. 1 (Criminal),Chap. 1, Rule 74(b), p. 28. That rule is in these terms: The Sessions Judge shall invariably record their opinion whether the act by which death was caused was done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death or with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. And in cases tried by jury they should be careful to obtain a specific verdict on these points.

(3.) As already stated, as the result of the questioning the learned Judge was able to get from the jury a fresh verdict, namely, one Under Section 302, I.P.C. The question which has to be determined at the outset is whether the fresh verdict is one which may be regarded as a verdict obtained in accordance with law. Now, it must be conceded that when the jury brought in a verdict Under Section 304, I.P.C, that was not an unambiguous or complete verdict, because the verdict did not indicate under which of the two parts of that section the case in their opinion fell. The ambiguity or incompleteness such as it was however was in respect of this matter only.