Skip to content


KasimuddIn Nasya and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in57Ind.Cas.934
AppellantKasimuddIn Nasya and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 297 - sessions trial--charge to jury, contents of--judge, duty of. - .....section 395 of the indian penal code, but we desire to say that in our judgment the record of the learned judge's charge on the questions of law is not sufficient. it is not sufficient for the learned judge, who tries a case, to state in his record of the heads of charge that he referred to certain sections of the indian penal code and explained to the jury the law with regard to the offence. he should set out the direction which in fact he gave to them in respect of the law in order that if the case comes upon appeal, this court may not be hampered by having to speculate as to what he said: the heads of charge should contain a record of the explanation of the law as the learned judge gave it to the jury, so that this court may be in a position to judge whether the elements constituting.....
Judgment:

Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.

1. In this case three of the convicted men are represented by the learned Vakil. Those three are Ladu Pramanik alias Nader, Kanchu alias Bajiruddin Shekh and Osimuddin Molla alias Kana. There is an appeal by Kasimuddin Nasya who is not represented by any learned Vakil.

2. The first point taken by the learned Vakil is that the learned Sessions Judge did not give sufficient direction to the Jury on the Question of law. The record of his charge is as follows: 'Upon the above facts the accused have been charged with having committed the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence is here explained to the Jury with reference to Sections 395, 391, 390, 383 and 378 as also Sections 23 and 24 of the Indian Penal Code.' 'They have now been told what constitutes the offence of dacoity. The first thing they have to decide is whether there was a dacoity committed in the house of the complainant Rahis in the night of the 4th July last. In the second place, they have to decide whether the four accused persons took part in that dacoity.' I need not read any more. In this case we do not direct a re-trial upon this ground, because we are of opinion that if the Jury accepted the evidence which was put forward on behalf of the prosecution, there is no doubt that they were entitled to convict the accused of the offence of which they were convicted namely, an offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, but we desire to say that in our judgment the record of the learned Judge's charge on the questions of law is not sufficient. It is not sufficient for the learned Judge, who tries a case, to state in his record of the heads of charge that he referred to certain sections of the Indian Penal Code and explained to the Jury the law with regard to the offence. He should set out the direction which in fact he gave to them in respect of the law in order that if the case comes upon appeal, this Court may not be hampered by having to speculate as to what he said: The heads of charge should contain a record of the explanation of the law as the learned Judge gave it to the Jury, so that this Court may be in a position to judge whether the elements constituting the particular offence inquestion have been properly and fully explained to the Jury, I hope that the learned Judges will pay attention to this. A great deal of time, trouble and expense will be saved if they observe our direction in this respect.

3. With regard to the other point which the learned Vakil has raised as to the alleged confession of Kasimuddin, we are of opinion that the learned Judge was right in leaving that alleged confession to the Jury, having regard to the statements which that alleged confession contained, and, I do not find any misdirection in the learned Judge's charge either with regard to the accused Kasimuddin who made the alleged confession or with regard to the other three accused who were charged along with him in respect of the same offence.

4. For these reasons we dismiss the appeal.

Walmsley, J.

5. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //