SUPERINTENDENT AND LEGAL REMEMBRANCER Vs. JAHEY SHEIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Local Government under the provisions of 8. 417, Criminal P.C. against an order of acquittal passed ay the First Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh in a case in which the two accused before us were charged before him and a jury under Section 395, I.P.C. The case is in many ways an extraordinary one, and it is desirable, therefore, to set out the facts briefly.

(2.) The two accused, Jahey Sheikh and Katua alias Jabed Ali, were charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 395, I.P.C. They were duly committed to take their trial in the Sessions Court. The first Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh, Mr. N.V.H. Symons, tried the case with the aid of a jury. On the 9 March 1927 the trial was concluded and the jury were directed to retire and bring in their verdict. What happened thereafter is set out below as appears from the record: Q. As regards both accused are you unanimous. A. Yes. Q. What is your verdict? A. Guilty under Section 395, I.P.C. Q. Did you find that Ismat mentioned Katua's name immediately after the occurrence? A. We thought it unlikely that the family could have made up the story so soon, and we did not think that the explanations of the accused about enmity were sufficient to enable Abdul to bring a false case.

(3.) The jury is then charged again on the matter concerned in the last question. They retired at 3-53 p. m. and returned at 4-30 p.m. Q. Do you find that Ismat mentioned Katua's name immediately after the occurrence? A. No, we find that he did not. Q. Does the jury wish to make any statement about their verdict of guilty? A. We did not follow the meaning of "fair complexion," nor did we understand fully the importance of the passage in the ejahar, and the evidence of the independent witnesses. We now see that Katua is a dark man, and that Ismat could not have mentioned his name as he has said that he only knew him by sight. We wish to amend our verdict and return a unanimous verdict of not guilty.