- (1.) This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the division bench judgment of the Calcutta High court, dated 19/09/1967 in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1964, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for offences under S. 148 and 302 indian penal code, and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
(2.) The appellant, Vivian Roderick, was tried by the High court on a charge under Section 302, Indian penal code in the IV Criminal Session of 1964 of the calcutta High court, for the offence alleged to have been committed by him on 9/01/1963. The jury found him guilty unanimously and accepting its verdict the presiding Judge, on 4/09/1964 convicted the appellant under Section 302, Indian penal code and sentenced him to death. At the same trial the appellant was also convicted for offences under Section 148, Indian penal code and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and 3 years respectively. The terms of imprisonment for these two latter offences were directed to run concurrently. The substance of the charges against the appellant were as follows : (I) that on 13/01/1963 the appellant was a member of an unlawful assembly guilty of rioting, being armed with deadly weapons and as such punishable under section 148, I. P. G. ; (Ii) that on 13/01/1963 the appellant committed the murder of one Vincent D' Rozario and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302, Indian penal code ; and (Iii) that on 13/01/1963 the appellant was in possession of ex- plosive substances for unlawful object and thereby committed an offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Four other persons, Stanley Rodrick, Ranjit Mandal, Simon Das and Ranjit biswas were also tried jointly with the appellant and convicted under Section 302, read with Section 149 and also under Section 148, I. P. G. Though the conviction was for an offence under Section 302, read with Section 149, I. P. G. curiously they were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment ; and none of them challenged their conviction in appeals. As mentioned earlier, so far as the appellant is concerned, his conviction for the offences mentioned above and the sentences imposed upon him for those offences were confirmed by the division bench.
(3.) In the view that we take that the appeal will have to be remanded for fresh disposal, we do not think it necessary to elaborately refer to the various contentions taken on behalf of the appellant, attacking his conviction for the several offences on merits, as they are matters which will have to be canvassed before the division bench of the High court when the matter goes back on remand.;