EMPEROR Vs. TUKARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the case of Tukaram Patil, which has been referred to this Court, under Section 307, Criminal P.C., by the learned Additional Sessions, Judge of Nagpur. Tukaram was tried on two charges, one under Section 147, I.P.C. and the other under Section 307/149, I.P.C. The jury unanimously found him not guilty under both the sections. Besides Tukaram, there were 27 other persons who were also tried on the same charges, for which Tukaram was tried. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty against 16 accused. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the jury against 27 accused and disagreed with the jury, so far as their verdict against Tukaram was concerned. He was of opinion that Tukaram was guilty under Section 147 and 325/149, I.P.C.

(2.) THIS case has been referred to this Court, under Section 307, Criminal P.C. and in dealing with the case, I have to keep in view, Sub-section (3), Section 307, Criminal P.C., which runs as follows: In dealing with the case so submitted, the High Court may exercise any of the powers which it may exercise on an appeal, and subject thereto it shall, after considering the entire evidence and after giving due weight to the opinion, of the Sessions Judge and the jury, acquit or convict such accused of any offence of which the jury could have convicted him upon the charge framed and placed before it, and, if it convicts him, may pass such sentence as might have been passed by the Court of Session.

(3.) IN a case of this sort, where a jury re-jturned a unanimous verdict of not guilty against the accused and the Additional Sessions Judge was of opinion that the verdict of the jury was manifestly wrong, he ought to have asked the jury to state their reasons for disbelieving the prosecution evidence, and ought to have recorded it, for the information of this 'Court. The reasons, most probably were the same or similar, as were urged before mo, by the learned counsel for the appellant. The point of view from which reference under. Section 307, Criminal P.C. should be considered by the High Court has been the subject of numerous judicial decisions and the learned counsel for Tukaram cited Emperor v. Kankaya A.I.R. 1926 Nag. 308, Emperor v. Dhananjoy Raha A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 321 and Emperor v. Ahbar Moola A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 449. These cases lay down rules of guidance, which may be followed in deciding references under Section 307, Criminal P.C. but the law on the point is very clear and explicit, as laid down in Section 307 (3), Criminal P.C. As pointed out by Cuming and Gregory, JJ., in Emperor v. Barn Chandra Roy A.I.R. 1928 Cal, " the Code would not seem to put the opinion of the jury on any higher plane than the opinion of the Judge, and both should be given due weight. "