NARAYAN SINGH CHHATRI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Narayan Singh and his co-accused Raghunath (Criminal Appeal 191 o) 1928;, who has also appealed to this Court, have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge at a jury trial of offences under Sections 147 and 325 read with Section 145, I.P.C., in the case of Narayan Singh, and as regards Raghunath of an offence under Section 147, I.P.C simpliciter. The appellant Narayan Singh has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, and the appellant Raghunath to six months' rigorous imprisonment. In the case of Narayan Singh, sentence was imposed on him only under Section 325 read with Section 149, I.P.C.

(2.) THE main aspects of the case are sufficiently clear, not only from the charge of the Additional Sessions Judge to the jury but also from his order of reference in the case of another accused Tukaram to this Court The result of that order of reference was that Tukaram, who had been acquitted by the verdict of the jury, has been convicted by another Judge of this Court of offences punishable under Sections 147 and 325 read with S 149, I.P.C. Both the order of reference and the judgment of Mohiuddin, A.J.C., dated 11th September 1928, give an admirable summary of the facts of the case and it is unnecessary, therefore, to repeat them in any detail in the present judgment. It will suffice to say that in all 28 accused were tried in the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 147 and 307, I.P.C. The jury unanimously convicted 16 of the accused including the appellants. As regards 11 accused, whom the jury acquitted, the Additional Session Judge accepted the verdict and only disagreed with the verdict of the jury so far as the accused Tukaram was concerned. The result of the disagreement of the Additional Sessions Judge with the jury's verdict in the case of Tukaram has already been stated above.

(3.) I take up first the case of Narayan Singh. This appellant was charged with offences under Sections 147 and 325 read with Section 149, I.P.C. The jury, however, as already stated, convicted the appellant of an offence under Section 147, and further held that he had been specifically guilty of an offence under Section 325, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted this verdict and convicted the appellant accordingly. On the strength of certain remarks made by Benson, J., in Pattikadan Ummaru v. Emperor [1903] 26 Mad. 243 it has been urged before me that, in accepting the verdict of the jury for the offence under Section 325, with which the appellant was not specifically charged, the learned Additional Sessions Judge in reality used the jury as assessors and that, therefore, this Court is competent to go into the facts of the case precisely as if the verdict of the jury amounted merely to an opinion as from assessors.