The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable evidence, expert testimony, and proper map preparation in criminal cases, as well as the role of the jury in evaluating evidence and reaching a verdict.

JUDGMENT

Sanderson, C.J. - This is a Reference by the learned second Additional Sessions Judge of the 24 Pergannahs in the case of Mofizel Peada: and the learned Judge has recommended that he should be convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. There were 13 persons involved in the charge, all of whom, with the exception of Fazal Zamindar, ware convicted of an offence u/s 147, I.P.C. Mofizel Peada was found not guilty under Sections 302 and 342 read with Section 109, but the jury found him guilty of an offence u/s 147 and also of an offence u/s 304 (A).

3. Dhanu Peada was found not guilty of an offence u/s 802 read with Section 109 and also of an offence u/s 342 read with Section 109: but, as I have already said, he was found guilty u/s 147, I.P.C.

4. That there was a riot on the 28th June 1924, there can be no doubt, between the party of the accused on the one hand and the party to which Momtaz Molla, the man who was killed belonged I do not think it necessary to deal in any detail with the allegations of enmity which existed between these two parties. There is evidence that enmity existed, at all events, between certain individuals of the one party with certain individuals of the other party. It is clear that on the 28th of June there was some incident which caused both parties to assemble- Momtaz's party near the bari of Dhanu Peada and the accused's party partly inside and partly outside the premises of Dhanu. There was undoubtedly abusive language: and I think the verdict of the jury involves the finding that there was throwing of bricks by the accused's party at Momtaz Molla and his companions. Momtaz Molla was killed by a bullet entering his body in the neighbourhood of the heart and penetrating his lungs and. coming out at the back at the tenth intercostal space about an inch in the left of the spine: he must have died very shortly after he had received that wound. 1 here is no doubt that the bullet which killed him was fired from a gun by Mofizel Peada.

5. The prosecution story, in short, is that the gun was fired by Mofizel Peada, that he was standing behind the wall which adjoins the road which passes the premises of Dhanu Peada, that Momtaz was in the field on the opposite side of the road on a rather lower level and that Mofizel took a deliberate aim at Momtaz and killed him.

6. The written statement made by the Defendant Mofizel Peada was to the effect that it was true that he had fired the gun but that he was standing on the west of the verandah (the verandah of the house and not behind the wall adjoining the road) that he fired the shot towards the field with a view to threaten the opposite party and that it was a pure accident that the bullet struck Momtaz, that he fired the shot towards the field thinking that there was no one there and that he had no intention to kill Momtaz or any one else.

7. It was part of the prosecution case that Dhanu had incited Mofizel to shoot Momtaz. Some of the witnesses said that they had heard Dhanu ask Mofizel to fetch Dhanu's gun and shoot Momtaz. It seems to me that the learned Jude made a very significant observation with regard to that part of the case when ho said: "The gun and license were in his name, but if there were such a shooting and hullabaloo, who would hear him give an order in the terms that we have given here? Besides that does not agree with the F.I.R. statement that the gun was taken by Mofizel from the house. The evidence now given looks like an inference drawn by angry and prejudiced men."

8. It seems to me that it would be difficult, having regard to the distance which separated some of the witnesses and Dhanu Peada and the noise and shouts which apparently were going on, for those witnesses to have heard what is alleged to have been said namely, that Dhanu had asked Mofizel to fetch his gun and shoot Momtaz.

9. With regard to the witnesses who were called on behalf of the prosecution, the learned Judge summarised his criticisms in the following manner:-"Thus i