EMPEROR Vs. RAMSIDH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Shahabad, under Section 374, Criminal P.C. in the case of one Ramsidh Rai of village Kudari, police station Barhara in the distridt of Shahabad, who has been convicted under Secs.302 and 328, I.P.C. for murdering one Chan, drika Singh of the village by administering arsenic poison with bhang on 5 October 1937. He has been sentenced to death under Section 302 but no separate sentence has been passed on him under Section 328. Along with the reference has been heard the appeal (No. 31 of 1938) of the accused Ramsidh Rai. Along with the appeal of Ramsidh Rai, there is also an appeal on behalf of Jagdish Rai. He is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1938 and is a son of the deceased Chandrika Singh, who has been convicted under Secs.302/109, 302/34, 328/109 and 328/34, I.P.C. Under Section 302/34 he has been sentenced to transportation for life, but no separate sentence has been awarded on him under the other sections. One Sakaldip Rai was also tried along with these persons but he has been acquitted.

(2.) Sir Manmatha Nath Mukharji, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has questioned the legality of the trial under the following circumstances: It appears that on 8 January 1938 eight assessors were summoned by the Additional Sessions Judge for the date of the trial but on that day only three happened to be present in Court. The learned Judge requisitioned the services of one Madan Mohan Sahay as the fourth assessor. The objection raised is that this contravened the provisions of Secs.326, 327 and 284, Criminal P.C., inasmuch as Madan Mohan Sahay who served as an assessor was not summoned in the first instance by the Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) In view of the objection we made inquiries from the Additional Sessions Judge as to the circumstances under which the assessor's services were requisitioned. In reply thereto the Additional Sessions Judge says as follows: Babu Madan Mohan Sahay was a gentleman whose name was entered in the list of jurors and assessors. They are summoned here by lot under Section 327 separately for every case and the said assessor had not been summoned for any other case for the date fixed for the hearing of the case in question. The practice here being to hold trials with the aid of four assessors and the number of assessors appearing on that date being only three, the deficit was made good by calling the said assessor as he happened to be present in the Court compound.