SHEIK ALIJAN Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case three accused persons were put on their trial under charges under Sections 394 and 397, I.P.C., before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Alipur sitting with a jury. The jury brought in a majority verdict of 3 : 2, finding the accused guilty under Section 394, I.P.C., i.e., of robbery and causing hurt. The first two accused have been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and the third accused against whom a previous charge for theft had been proved has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. He has also been directed to report to the police any change of address under Section 565, Criminal P.C., for a period of two years after the expiry of the term of imprisonment.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that the accused persons persuaded one Satis Chandra Biswas to meet them and go to see a tank for the purpose of dealing in fish, He borrowed some money from one Surajballi, went with his partner Jiban Krishna Das and met the accused at the Beliaghata station. They then went to Dhakuria where they got out of the train. After this when they were walking down the line, the three accused persons set on them and robbed them of Rs. 124 which Satis had, one of them using a knife, and decamped.

(3.) The verdict of the jury has been assailed on three grounds. The first allegation is that as a matter of fact when the jury first came in to declare their verdict the Judge asked them if they were unanimous. They said they were not. But it is alleged that they added they were not unanimous as their verdict was "not guilty by 3 : 2." The Judge then asked them to retire and they brought in a verdict of "guilty" by a majority of 3 to 2. Now as to this allegation which is supported by an affidavit, it is remarkable that no objection was taken before the Judge at the time. We therefore thought it necessary to make a reference to the learned Judge as to whether there was any such incident as was alleged. The learned Judge denies that there was any such incident at all. He has pointed out that what is his usual practice is that he writes the question first on paper and then puts it to the jury and records the answer; and that he only recorded what the jury said, that is, there was no verdict that the accused were not guilty. This is a point which the Judge would certainly have remembered and we have not the slightest hesitation in finding that this affidavit is not worth the paper on which it is written and accept the statement of the Judge.