1951 Supreme(Cal) 294

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Harries, Das
AMALESH CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Criminal Revn.  824  Of  1951
Decided On : DECEMBER 13, 1951

A trial by jury may be vitiated by misdirections and non-directions on points of substance, the admission of inadmissible evidence, and the failure to warn the jury of the potential influence of such evidence.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - TRIAL BY JURY - MISDIRECTION - ADMISSION OF INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE - FAILURE TO WARN JURY - RETRIAL - SECTION 307, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - PERVERSE VERDICT.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted of offences arising out of an incident which resulted in the death of Col. S. C. Mitra. The appellants and their brother Amalesh Chandra Roy were tenants of the second floor of 17 Bondel Road. According to the prosecution, there was considerable ill feeling between the tenants and their landlord. Proceedings had taken place in the Court of the Rent Controller relating to rent and allegations had been made by the tenants that sufficient water was not being supplied to them by the landlord. On August 11, 1950, the appellants and their brother, it is alleged, began shouting abuses from 17 Bondel Road. Col. Mitra who was the father of Nirmal Kumar Mitra, the appellants' landlord, had come to stay with his son the evening before. These shouts, it is said, caused Col. Mitra to go outside 18 Bondel Road. The three Roy brothers it is said came into the compound and an altercation occurred between them and Col. Mitra. Col. Mitra's son Nirmal went out to see what the trouble was and it is alleged that he was seized round the waist by Amalesh Chandra Roy and assaulted by the appellant Satyendra Chandra Roy. Col. Mitra it is said expostulated whereupon Sunil, it is alleged, produced some kind of a rod from his clothing and proceeded to attack Col. Mitra. He hit him on the head with a rod and also, it is said, struck him on the side of the head one or more blows with his fist. Col. Mitra fell on the ground and the two appellants and their brother made good their escape. People rushed to Col. Mitra but found that he was dead.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the trial was vitiated by misdirections and non-directions on points of substance and that the admission of inadmissible evidence under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may have influenced the jury in arriving at the conclusion they did. The Court also found that the verdict of acquittal against Amalesh Chandra Roy was not perverse and should not be set aside.

Issues: 1. Whether the trial was vitiated by misdirections and non-directions on points of substance? 2. Whether the admission of inadmissible evidence under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may have influenced the jury in arriving at the conclusion they did? 3. Whether the verdict of acquittal against Amalesh Chandra Roy was perverse and should be set aside?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the trial was vitiated by misdirections and non-directions on points of substance. The Court found that the learned Judge had failed to put to the jury correctly the defence case as to the cause of the fall of Colonel Mitra, that the learned Judge had not pointed out to the jury that there were indications in this case that the case for the prosecution had been added to and strengthened as the case advanced, and that the learned Judge was guilty of admitting evidence which was clearly inadmissible. 2. The Court held that the admission of inadmissible evidence under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may have influenced the jury in arriving at the conclusion they did. The Court found that the depositions of certain prosecution witnesses were put in at the instance of the Public Prosecutor and that the learned Judge did not state why the Public Prosecutor wanted them to put in, or why he allowed the Public Prosecutor to put in these depositions as evidence. 3. The Court held that the verdict of acquittal against Amalesh Chandra Roy was not perverse and should not be set aside. The Court found that the jury might have come to the conclusion that Amalesh played a very minor if any part at all in this affair, that Amalesh had suffered certain injuries, and that the jury might have thought that there was a good deal in Amalesh's version.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal of Sunil Chandra Roy and Satyendra Chandra Roy, set aside their convictions and sentences, and directed their retrial upon the charges on which they were convicted at the next Sessions of the High Court. The Court discharged the petition of the State for enhancement and rejected the Reference of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The Court also discharged Amalesh Chandra Roy's bail bond and directed that he need not surrender to his bail.