KASIMUDDIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three appellants before us have been convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Dinajpur of the offences under Secs.366 and 147, I.P.C., on the unanimous verdict of the jury and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 366 and two years under Section 147, the sentences to run concurrently. The case for the prosecution is that on 25 April 1933 the appellants entered the hut of a young widow Khadija, caught hold of her person, dragged her out of the hut, began to carry her away forcibly whereupon she began to scream, that on hearing her cries P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 came out and rescued her, after she was taken about two rashis from her house. The defence of the appellants is that they knew nothing of this occurrence, that the girl was married to the appellant Kasimuddin on 24 April 1933 and that on 26 April 1933, the prosecution witnesses assaulted Kasimuddin and drove him away.

(2.) By Section 418(1), Criminal P.C., an appeal to this Court against the conviction on a trial with the aid of a jury lies on a matter of law only. The first error of law on which the appellants rely is that the procedure with regard to the delivery of the verdict by the jury is bad in law inasmuch as the jury were not justified in law in adding to their verdict their finding of the facts on which the verdict is based. This contention is not supported either by any provision of law or by any precedent. The statute law in this country has not laid down any particular form in which the jury are to deliver their verdict. Consequently there is no legal bar in the way of the jury, to return their verdict in any way they think fit provided it is complete and exhaustive as to facts in issue which go to make up the charges. There is therefore no substance in this contention.

(3.) The second error of law which is urged in support of, the appeal is that the heads of the re-charge on which the jury brought in their verdict of guilty under Section 147, I.P.C., were not recorded by the Judge as required by the proviso to Sub-section 5, Section 367 of the Code. It is clear however from the record that the fresh charge was the same as recorded in pp. 4 and 5 of the original charge. We are therefore unable to give effect to this contention. The third ground urged in support of the appeal is that on account of defective summing up of the evidence in the case the jury have been misled and an erroneous verdict has been returned by them. It may be pointed out here that the law only requires the heads of the charge to be recorded. The evident object of the legislature is to have a written record of the summing up of the evidence and the laying down of the law by the Judge to the jury in order to enable the Court of appeal to decide whether the Judge has properly marshalled the facts under distinct and separate heads while charging the jury for their substantial help and guidance in arriving at the conclusions on the facts in issue. In order to justify the appellate Court to set aside the verdict of the jury the finding that there are certain omissions or non- directions is not enough. The Court of appeal must be satisfied on a perusal of the charge and the material evidence in the case that the omissions are so important that it may be reasonably said that they have led to an erroneous verdict.