HARRIES, C.J. - (1.) THESE are two appeals from convictions under Section 395, Penal Code. The appellant Kailash Nath Shaw, who is the sole appellant in Appeal No. 213 of 1949 was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The seven persons who are the appellants in Appeal No. 220 of 1949 were each sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) THE offence with which these eight persons were charged, was a most serious one of dacoity and if they were guilty of the offence the sentences imposed, namely, three years' and two years' rigorous imprisonment, were far too lenient. As the learned Judge accepted the jury's verdict he was in my view bound to impose very much more severe sentences then those which he did. The eight appellants were tried by a learned Sessions Judge and a jury upon this charge of dacoity. The jury by a majority of 3 to 2 found all the eight appellants guilty. The learned Judge apparently agreed with the verdict and sentenced the appellants in the manner I have indicated.
(3.) MR . Sudhansu Mukherji who has appeared on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals, has contended that the charge to the jury in this case was grossly inadequate and that it contained such misdirections that the verdict of the jury must be held to be vitiated. What Mr. Mukherji suggests is non -direction rather then misdirection. It is clear however that where a learned Judge fails to direct the jury on material matters such failure to direct amounts in law to a misdirection.;