EMPEROR Vs. RAMKRIPAL CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C. from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, against the unanimous verdict of a jury convicting three persons, namely, Ramkripal Choudhary, Munilal Choudhary and Mahabir Choudhary, under Section 486, I.P.C. These three men were tried along with thirteen others in a case arising out of a complaint by one Panchkauri Choudhari which was briefly to the effect that after a quarrel between his wife and another woman the wife of one Ramraji Jha, this Ramraji came with sixteen others, including Ramkripal, Munilal and Mahabir, and after pursuing the complainant's wife into the angan of their house and beating her and the complainant himself and his servant named Balelwa, they proceeded to loot his house. Finally, it was alleged that Ramkripal, Munilal and Mahabir set fire to a hut and two brick built rooms with straw roofs belonging to the complainant.

(2.) The case was sent for enquiry to the Sub-Inspector who found only the charge of assault to be made out and reported accordingly; but the Magistrate held/that there was a prima facie case under Section 395 and also under Section 436 and committed all the accused to take their trial in the Court of Session. Charges were also framed under Section 323, against some of the accused and under Section 147, against all.

(3.) In Darbhanga, where the case was tried, the charge under Section 436 is triable by a jury while the remaining charges are triable with the aid of assessors. The five jurors, who sat to hear the case, came to the unanimous verdict of guilty against Ramkirpal, Munilal and Mahabir under Section 436, and they also, as assessors, were unanimously of the opinion that the charges under Secs.147 and 323 were established but not that under Section 395. The Judge, on the other hand, considered that none of the charges was proved, and, while acquitting all the accused on the other charges, he referred the case of Ramkripal, Munilal and Mahabir to this Court with a recommendation that in disagreement with the verdict of the jury they should be acquitted of the charge under Section 436, I.P.C.