DORI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by 17 persons who have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Bareilly of an offence punishable under Section 395, Indian Penal Code. The trial was by jury. After the Judge had finished his charge the jury retired to consider their verdict. The foreman thereafter delivered, the verdict of the jury in the following terms: We do not find the offence proved because although we think that the accused were present there is no evidence that they intended to commit dacoity when they went there. The affair-seems to be rather what happens in a village and in such a case it is quite ordinary to use such an expression as even though you out our throats we will not let you cut the crop. We think that they went to the field with the idea of settling the dispute. I know of such a case in one of my own villages.

(2.) At this stage the learned Judge stopped the foreman and explained certain matters to the jury and also put certain questions to the foreman to which be replied. Thereafter the jury was asked to retire again to re-consider the facts and the points which the Judge had laid before them. The jury then returned a verdict of guilty as regards each of the appellants and the learned Judge accepting the verdict convicted the appellants. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the procedure adopted by the learned Judge had no sanction in law and the amended verdict of guilty returned by the jury was illegal. In my judgment, this contention is well founded and ought to prevail.

(3.) The incident forming the subject of the charge took place in village Pan aria on 2 January, 1935. It is common ground that a sugarcane crop alleged to belong to two persons named Dori and Chet Ram was attached in execution of a decree and was sold by the Amin on 1 January 1935. One Gauri Shankar purchased the same for Rs. 74. Gauri Shankar paid the sale price and the Amin passed a receipt.