C.C. Ghose, J.
1. This appeal was argued at considerable length yesterday and also to-day. Various points have been urged before us with a view to show that there are serious misdirections in the learned Judge's charge to the jury. As a matter of fact, the learned Judge's charge to the jury has been subjected to very minute criticizm; but on the fullest consideration we are unable to say that any portion of the charge can be assailed on the ground of misdirection.
2. There is, however, one point which requires consideration and it is this. It is said that as regards the appellant, Nawab Ali, who was charged under Section 302 read with Section 109 I.P.C., among other sections, the learned Judge's explanation of Section 109 was defective in this that he used language from which it might be construed that the learned Judge was of opinion that if Nawab Ali ordered his men to beats and if the killing of Hamijuddin was committed in consequence of his order to boat, Nawab Ali was to be held guilty of abetment of the act of killing. The sentence in the charge referred to above, by itself, may be open to misconstruction; but we have got to read that sentence bearing in mind the facts of this case and the facts are as follows : According to the case for the prosecution, the complainant Ismail, who had mortgaged the land (plot No. 11.8) to Nawab Ali, retook possession of the same as Nawab had not paid the rent due to the superior landlord. It is said that on the day of the occurrence Ismail was cutting paddy of that plot when the accused with a large number of men about 40 in number came in a boat armed with lejas, lathis and ramdaos and protested against Ismail's cutting of the paddy. A quarrel ensued in the course of which, under Nawab Ali's orders, Ismail's party was attacked and assaulted, as a result of which Hamijuddin and Abdul Majid were seriously wounded and as the result of the wounds they died. Now, if, as a matter of fact, the facts were, as indicated above, then if the learned Judge had said that upon Nawab Ali ordering his men to beat the opposite party and in consequence of which order the people who were opposed to Nawab Ali's party were beaten and as a result two men were killed, Nawab Ali would undoubtedly be held guilty of abetment of murder, then in the circumstances of this case there was and would have been nothing wrong. We are fortified in the view we take by the decision of the Patna High Court in the ease of Ghanshyam Singh v. Emperor A.I.R. 1928 Pat. 100, the passage with which we are concerned Occurring at p. 635. That being so, we see no reason whatsoever for interfering in this appeal with the order made by the learned Sessions Judge.
3. The result is that the appeal is dismissed.
4. I agree.