ASANULLA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case 26 persons were charged with various offences of whom 7 were acquitted and 19 convicted, and all those convicted have appealed. Of the charges, all were accused of offences under Section 147, I.P.C. No. 1, Asanulla, was also charged under Section 304. The other 25 were all charged also under Section 304/149. Nine of them were also charged under Section 304/109. Of the appellants, Asanulla was convicted under Secs.326 and 148 and sentenced to four years and two years, respectively, to run concurrently. Sk. Bhola alias Soifulla was convicted under Secs.148 and 324 and sentenced to two years and three years respectively to run concurrently. Nos. 3 to 8 and 11 to 19 were convicted under Section 147 and sentenced each to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Nos. 9 and 10 were convicted under Secs.148 and 324 and sentenced to two years and three years respectively, to run concurrently.

(2.) Abdul Majid had a plot of land in Dundurpur Kitta of Mauza Chandpur in which he grew boro paddy. His servants, Hanif and Montaj, and his day labourers Waris and Reasat were transplanting paddy with the assistance of two other servants, Sifat and Rushan, when the accused, numbering 26 in all, came in a body with lathis, sulfis, jathas, ++, etc., to take possession of Abdul Majid's land. They were asked to go away and then on the order of the accused Kali Kumar, the accused Asanulla hit Hanif on the head with a sulfi, and Hasmat, Wahab, Najib, Ram Nath and Sashi Nath beat him with lathis on different parts of his body. Bhola hit Waris in the belly with a sulfi. Taimus struck Waris on the side with a kucha. Injad, Sikandar, Asad and Kanai beat him with lathis on different parts of his body. Injad struck Montaz on the abdomen with a kochashola. Husu, Hashu, Bhulai and Azamdi struck him with lathis and Taimus Khan dealt a blow with a kochashola on the hand of Reasat, and Kazim, Yakub, Tarik and Intaz struck him with lathis.

(3.) The complainant Abdul Majid stood at a little distance and then ran away out of fear while he was chased by the accused on the order of Kali Kumar. The wounded persons were taken to the hospital on the evening of the same day, and dying declarations of Hanif and Waris were recorded by a Magistrate. Hanif died in Hospital, as a result of these injuries, on 17th January, the occurrence having taken place on 1 January. The learned advocate for the appellants has argued that the convictions ought to be set aside owing to misdirection by the learned Judge. He has not been able to point to any specific misdirection, but says that the charge is confused and unintelligible. This case is a striking instance of the impossibility of the task which the Criminal Procedure Code, as construed and elaborated by the decisions of this and other High Courts, has placed upon the shoulders of Judges of subordinate Courts, and it causes one almost to despair of trial by jury, under the conditions which have been imposed by the legislature.