The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, specifically regarding the admissibility of statements made by accused persons and its impact on the trial proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Rankin, J. - In this case there are 5 appellants. They have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Assam Valley Districts sitting with a jury of seven. There had been a previous trial and the case was sent back by this Court to be re-tried. The jury on this occasion were unanimous.

2. They have found all the appellants guilty u/s 302 read with Section 149, Indian P.C. Three of them have also been found guilty u/s 302 by itself while the other two have been found guilty u/s 324.

3. The fifth appellant, Rasir Haji, is the father of Appellants 1, 3 and 4, Aimaddy, Johifaddy and Rahimaddy. The second appellant, Sayad Ali, is a friend and neighbour.

4. The occurrence took place between 8 and 9 a.m. on the 7th March 1925. According to the prosecution it took place at the S.E. corner of the patta land of one Kimu where it abuts upon some khas land of which Basir and Sayed Ali were wanting to get settlement from Government. According to the defence it took place to begin with the E of Kimu's land and upon the adjacent plot of khas land marked N upon the plan. The prosecution story is that Kimu was erecting a hut at the S.E. corner of his own land when the accused with others came armed with spears and lathis to prevent this, and that when he called certain people who were in the field, an altercation commenced and the accused proceeded to attack Kimu's party. Three people were killed undoubtedly and others injured.

5. The case for the defence, is that the accused were proceeding to erect a hut on the khas land and that the complainant's party attacked them.

6. The individual acts of each accused are not really in doubt. The first appellant killed a man called Alimuddin with a spear. The second appellant killed Kalimuddin and the third killed Mokim in like manner. The fourth appellant, a lad of about 18 years, struck Yaruddin with a spear in the buttock. Basir, who was armed with a ram-dao struck Mukdun and cut his arm. The injuries of Yaruddin and Mukdun amounted only to simple hurt.

7. Three passages in the summing up are objected to by the learned vakil for the appellants and as the first two of these raise questions u/s 162 of the Criminal P.C. I will deal with them first.

8. The occurrence having taken place about 9 a.m. the first information was given at the thana some five miles away at 12-80 p.m. by Abdul Basir P.W. 1. At 2-20 p.m. on the same day the first appellant, Azimaddy, laid an information at another thana accusing the complainant's party.

9. The learned Judge admitted this latter document in evidence. It is Ex. 6. It contains a statement that Baser Haji was beaten but that there was no injury. At the trial it was part of the defence case that Baser had considerable injuries wholly explained by the prosecution evidence. The learned Judge on this point and on others put Azimaddy's information to the jury. It is said that this is contrary to Section 162 of the Code.

10. The other passage to which objection is taken explains itself:

On the other hand against the theory that the posts were in the first place erected by the accused on the land to the east we have Sub-Inspector Prodip Roy Deka's evidence that he found no trace of the erection of a house at the place pointed out to him by the accused Baser Haji, and Sub-Inspector Uday Chandra Sarma also says he found no trace of a house having been erected there though he reached the place at 3 p.m. the next day.

11. This too is said to be contrary to Section 162 of the Code.

12. The learned vakil who appears for the prosecution contends that Section 162 of the Code as it now stands has no application to the statements of accused persons who are on their trial. As regards the first of the two objections other points may arise - viz. whether a first information report is within Section 162 at all and whether if so this particular information laid at 2-30 p.m. was made to a police officer "in the course of an investigation" begun presumably at 12-30 on receipt of the prior