THE KING v. DIAS.

P. C, Kurunegala, 4,459.

Verdict of jury-Culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Pulling the trigger of a gun with the intention of intimidating.

Where, in the course of a dispute and fight in regard to an encroachment on land, a person aimed a revolver at his opponent and pulled its trigger three or four times in vain, and then snatched a gun from one of his party, and without bringing it to the shoulder pulled its trigger when his opponent was standing only a few feet from the muzzle, and the gun discharged itself into his chest and killed him,-

Held, that the verdict of the jury that " the accused was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and that he polled the trigger-with the intention of intimidating " was not bad.

THIS was a special case reserved by Mr. Justice Grenier for a Full Bench. The point involved appears in the following statement of his lordship.

At the criminal sessions of the Supreme Court for the Western Circuit now being held in Colombo, Kirindage Elaris Dias stood indicted before me for murder. The Crown called a large

number of witnesses whose evidence showed that in the course of a fight or dispute in regard to an encroachment which, it was alleged, the prisoner, who was in the employ of Mr. E. L. F. de Soysa, had made on land belonging to Mr. David Gunasekera, under whom the deceased was employed as a cooly, the prisoner first aimed a revolver at the deceased and pulled the trigger three or four times, but none of the cartridges exploded. He then snatched a gun from one of his party who was standing close to him, and without bringing it to the shoulder fired at the deceased, who was within a few feet from the muzzle. The shot lodged in the deceased's chest, and he died from the effects of the wound so inflicted about two days after. The prisoner himself had a contused wound on his forehead, and had to be attended to in hospital altogether for about four or five weeks. A cooly by the name of Muniandi, who was one of prisoner's party, was also wounded, although slightly. In view of the facts disclosed by the evidence, I told the jury in the course of my summing up that if they believed the evidence, and that prisoner fired the gun at deceased in the heat of passion in a sudden quarrel, and in the circumstances deposed to by the witnesses called by the Crown, they should convict the prisoner of at least the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The jury retired, and returned into Court after being in consultation for some considerable time, and the foreman stated that their verdict was that the prisoner was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but added that the jury found that the gun went off while in the possession of the prisoner. I then asked the foreman, as the finding seemed to me very indefinite, if the jury found that the gun went off accidentally, in which case I said the prisoner would be entitled to an acquittal. The foreman stated that such was not their finding. I asked the jury to retire, as they seemed to be unable to agree at once, and reconsider their verdict. The jury returned into Court and the foreman then stated that the verdict of the jury was that the prisoner was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, " and that he pulled the trigger with the intention of intimidating." To prevent any further uncertainty as to the verdict, I directed the foreman to reduce it into writing, which he did.

I accepted the verdict of the jury as substantially one that the prisoner was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, on the ground which was then present in my mind that every one was presumed in law to intend the natural and reasonable consequence of his acts, and that even if the prisoner's intention was to intimidate he should be held responsible for the

death of the deceased, once it was found by the verdict of the jury that the