FAJER ALI DARJI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by four accused persons. Accused Fazar Ali has been convicted Under Secs.147, 326/149 and Section 323, I. PC, Kasimali Under Section148, 326/149 and Under Secs.323 and 325, I. PC, Abdul Aziz Under Secs.148 and 326, I. PC. and Yonus Under Secs.148 324 and 326/149, I. PC. The accused have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment on a unanimous verdict of a jury.

(2.) It appears to be perfectly clear that the facts of the case giving rise to the prosecution have been elaborately dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge in his careful charge to the jury and that all the salient features of the case for the prosecution as well as for the defence were placed before the jury with great care and attention. The defence case was laid before the jury in detail and all the main features of the defence so far as the evidence was concerned were placed before the jury by the learned Judge in his charge. After placing the material portions of the evidence before the jury, the learned Judge explained the law applicable to the case. The charge to the jury shows that Section 147, I. PC, was explained to the jury in very great detail and the elements of the offence contemplated by that section were placed before the jury. With reference to the other sections arising for consideration in the case all the provisions of those sections had been explained by the learned Judge to the jury of which mention may be made of Secs.147 to 149 and Secs.321 to 326, I. PC. The learned Judge's summary of the provisions of those various sections was definite and clear, and we are of opinion that nothing was left out which could be of real assistance to the jury in applying the law to the facts and circumstances of the case before them.

(3.) The learned advocate appearing for the appellants has, in the first place argued that the learned Judge's explanation of the law was not clear and that it had the effect of confusing the jury. As has been indicated already the learned Judge's charge to the jury so far as it related to the explanation of the law appears to us to be not one open to any just comment. The provisions of the law were carefully analysed by the learned Judge in his charge to the jury and in our opinion there was nothing left out in view of which it could be said that the jury had not the law applicable to the case explained to them in the proper way.