EMPEROR Vs. QUDRAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C., by the learned Assistant Suasions Judge of Benares. Mt. Bhagmania said to be about 12 or 13 years of age, was living with her father-in-law named Sudaman in village Lachhmangarh. On 1st August 1938, Sudaman found at about 8 or 9 P.M. that Mt. Bhagmania had disappeared from the house in which the family was living. Sudaman searched for the girl, but did not succeed in tracing her. He gave information to Lallan Singh, the zamindar of the village. The next day the Sub-Inspector of police station Balua happened to visit the village. Lallan Singh informed the Sub-Inspector of the disappearance of the girl. After some investigation Qudrat, accused, was summoned, and it is stated that he informed the Sub-Inspector that the girl would be found at the house of Mt. Rasulan, accused 2, in village Dharain. The girl was found outside the house of Mt. Rasulan and was made over to Iqbal Ahmad, the Sub-Inspector. Qudrat and Rasulan were prosecuted, the former under Sections 366 and 376, I.P.C., and the latter under Section 368, I.P.C. The case was committed to the Sessions and was tried with the aid of a jury. Mt. Bhagmania stated how she was enticed away by Qudrat who, after having sexual intercourse with her, took her to the house of Mt. Rasulan at mid. night and left her in custody of Mt. Rasulan. After the examination of the witnesses for the prosecution and the examination of the accused, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was of the opinion that there was no evidence on the record to prove that the accused had committed the offences with which they were charged. He accordingly directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. The jury, however, returned a verdict of guilty by a majority of 3 against 2. The learned Sessions Judge then made this reference under Section 307 of the Code, with the recommendation that this Court may set aside the verdict of the jury and may pass an order of acquittal in favour of the accused persons. The first question to be determined is whether the jury were entitled to return the verdict of guilty against the clear direction of the learned Sessions Judge to the contrary. Section 289(2), Criminal P.C., provides: If he (accused) says ha does not, the prosecutor may sum up his case; and if the Court considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, it may then, in a case tried with the aid of assessors, record a finding, or in a case tried by a jury, direct the jury to return a verdict, of not guilty.

(2.) The expression "direct" leaves no room for doubt that the intention of the Legislature was that the jury was bound to accept the opinion of the Judge, whether they agreed with that view or not. This interpretation finds support from illustration (a) to Section 299 of the Code: ...It is the duty of the jury to decide which view of the facts is true and to return a verdict in accordance with the direction of the Judge, whether that direction is right or wrong, and whether they do not agree with it.

(3.) This illustration apparently refers to the direction given by the learned Judge on points of law; but the same expression is used in Section 289 of the Code, and in our opinion it follows that the direction of the Judge that there is no evidence that the accused committed an offence is equally binding on the jury and must be followed by them. In other words, the question of absence of evidence is treated as a question of law and not a mere question of fact. Having regard to the clear language of the section, we have no hesitation in holding that the verdict of the jury in the present case cannot be accepted.