Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.
1. In this case we have read the learned Sessions Judge's charge to the Jury, The learned Counsel for the Crown, when we put the question to him, was constrained to admit that the charge was rather confusing. Speaking for myself, I should go further than the learned Counsel for the Crown. In my judgment, so far from this summing up making the case clear to the Jury giving them assistance, it was calculated to confuse them and, having read it, I have come to the conclusion that it would not be safe for us to allow this verdict to stand. The result is that we must set aside the verdict and the sentences upon the two appellants and direct that the case, as regards these two accused, Edon Karikar and Ofazuddi Karikar, should be re-tried.
2. It appears that the Jury returned a verdict unanimously. They found that Edon Karikar and Ofezuddi Karikar were each guilty under Sections 325 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code: they found that none of the other accused was guilty of any offence as the Jury gave each of the other accused the benefit of, the doubt as to whether he was present or not. It is a perfectly clear verdict. The learned Judge then, as I understand from the record which is now before us, proceeded to ask them certain questions, one of which was,--'I should like your opinions, if you will give them, as to how the three kabuliyats came into existence.' Upon the information which is before us at the present moment, I do not understand why these questions were asked. It does not seem to us that they could have been asked by the learned Judge in pursuance of Section 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because that section applies only to the cases where questions are necessary to ascertain what the verdict of the Jury is. In this case, as I have already remarked, the verdict of the Jury was clear, and I do not understand that there was any necessity to ask questions for the purpose of ascertaining what that verdict was. I refrain from saying anything more, because there may be some explanation why the learned Judge asked those questions, which is not apparent at the present moment and, I must content myself with saying that I do not understand why those questions were asked.
3. The result is that the conviction and sentences must be set aside, and the case, as regards the two appellants, must be remanded for a new trial.
4. I agree.