EMPEROR Vs. GCWILSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Crown against the order of acquittal of the respondent in respect of a charge under Section 304, I.P.C. The prosecution story is that the respondent, who is the manager of a tea estate, known as Madhabpur Tea Estate in the district of Sylhet in Assam, went out on a round of inspection of the garden in the forenoon of the 30 June 1925. He was not satisfied with the work of the deceased cooly Dasarath Gowala. He called the cooly to his presence and ordered him to proceed with the work of hoeing, but being dissatisfied with the manner of his work, seized the deceased by the neck and struck him with his clenched first and the deceased fell down, whereupon the accused kicked him. The deceased expired shortly after the assault. On these allegations the accused was placed before the committing Magistrate charged with an offence under Section 304, I.P.C., and was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions on that charge.

(2.) In the Court of Sessions the charge framed by the committing Magistrate under Section 304, I.P.C., was maintained and the trial proceeded until after the case for the prosecution was closed and the Public Prosecutor had finished his address, During the course of the address by the respondent's pleader, a further charge under Section 352, I.P.C., was added in these words: "That you slapped Dasarath cooly and thereby used criminal force to him." The jury consisting of three Europeans and two Indians brought in a majority verdict of guilty against the accused under Section 334, I.P.C., only. The following questions were put by the Judge and the answers given by the jury: Q.--Are you unanimous? A.--No. Q.--In what proportion are you divided? A.--3 to 2 on one charge, unanimous on the other. Q.--What is your verdict? A.--Not guilty under Section 304, I.P.C., unanimous verdict. Q.--And for the rest? A.--We find the accused guilty under Section 334, I.P.C., by a majority of 3 to 2, namely, that the accused voluntarily caused hurt on grave and udden provocation.

(3.) On the face of it the verdict of the jury is ambiguous. They acquitted the accused unanimously of the charge under Section 304, I.P.C., and said nothing about any finding of a charge manor to it. The only other charge that remained against the accused was one under Section 352, I.P.C. and under that charge be could not be convicted under Section 334, I.P.C., which is not a minor offence to the offence under Section 352, I.P.C. The verdict, as it stands, means that the jury found that the accused was not guilty of an offence under Section 304, I.P.C., as he did not cause such injuries to the deceased as would likely cause death nor did the accused know that they were likely to cause death; but they believed that he caused hurt to the deceased (it is not clear whether by the slap or the kick) and therefore he committed an act which would be an offence under Section 323, I.P.C.; but the hurt having been caused under grave and sudden provocation he was guilty of an offence under Section 334, I.P.C.