The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of ensuring the admissibility of evidence and the avoidance of misdirections in influencing the jury's decision, ultimately impacting the fairness of the trial.

( 1 ) THE appellant was tried upon a charge of murder by a learned Additional Sessions Judge of 24 Parganas sitting with a jury. The jury by a unanimous verdict found the appellant not guilty under Section 302 of the Penal Code but by a majority verdict of seven to two found him guilty under Part II of Section 304 of the Penal Code. The learned Judge accepted the majority verdict of guilty under part II of Section 304 of the Penal Code, convicted the appellant of the relative offence and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case against the appellant was as follows: The appellant resided within the jurisdiction of Tollygunge Bengal Police station and was the leader of a party. The deceased Umaprosad Chakravarty was the leader of another party formed for the purpose of thwarting the appellant's party which indulged in certain misdeeds. On one or two previous occasions, there had been free fights between the two parties. On 2-9-1953, at noon, the deceased Umaprosad Chakravarty went into a small hotel at 143, Netaji Subhas Road in Tollygunge and whilst seated there on a bench, the appellant entered the place. A short-statured and fair-complexioned unknown man also entered the restaurant and stood at the back of the deceased. On the appellant uttering the words, "welcome, Mr. K. L. Chakravarty", the short-statured unknown man caught hold of the deceased's waist from behind. The deceased turned towards the north and attempted to free himself when the appellant stabbed the deceased thrice on his chest and once on his abdomen in quick succession with a knife. The deceased fell down on the floor without being able to utter a word. The appellant and the other man then escaped. Umaprosad Chakravarty expired soon after the assault.

( 3 ) THERE were several witnesses to what happened inside the restaurant.

( 4 ) THE appellant's defence "inter alia' was that the proprietor of the hotel Balai Mukherjee had murdered the deceased in the early morning of 2-9-1953, owing to a deadly quarrel with the deceased over a girl named Chhaya Sen and that he, that is, Balai Mukherji, had falsely implicated the appellant

( 5 ) THE facts and circumstances disclosed in evidence clearly point to a dastardly crime having been committed. Besides the direct evidence of a number of witnesses, there were circumstances of a reliable kind. In spite of such good admissible evidence as there was, a certain amount of inadmissible evidence was unfortunately let in. Unfortunately also, the learned Judge in the course of his summing-up referred to certain matters to which reference will be made presently and which, in our view, must have had some effect, upon the minds of the jury in coming to their conclusion as to the guilt of the appellant. In view of these errors, we have decided to order a fresh trial of the appellant. In that view of the matter, we have to refrain from discussing the evidence in the case. We must, however, in order to dispose of this appeal, refer to such matters as, in our view, entitle this Court to set aside the verdict of the jury and the conviction which followed and to order a retrial of the appellant upon a charge under Section 304, Part II.

( 6 ) MR. Nalin Chandra Banerji, appearing on of the appellant, has invited our attention to those parts of the charge where the learned Judge referred to the appellant as a notorious 'goonda'. It appears that P. W. 2, Sambhu Charan Das, spoke of the appellant as a notorious 'goonda' in the locality. However, whether the reference by the learned Judge to the appellant as a goonda was founded upon evidence or not, it cannot be doubted that the bad character of a person accused of an offence, in which his bad character is not in issue, is entirely irrelevant. Section 54 of the Evidence Act is quite clear on the question. Mr. Banerji has, in our view, rightly contended that the constant reference to the appellant as a goonda was bound to advers