GITESH RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE, J. - (1.) The aforesaid two criminal appeals and the death reference are being disposed of by this judgement and order as they arise out of the same trial. By his impugned judgement Sri Milan Chatterjee, Addl. Sessions Judge, Hooghly convicted both the appellants under Section 148/149/302, IPC and sentenced the appellant-accused Md. Ayub to imprisonment for life and appellant-accused Md. Kayoom to death. The present appeals and the death reference arise out of orders of conviction and sentences passed by the said Addl. Sessions Judge, Hooghly. It is also to be mentioned here that the Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against 22 accused persons including the present appellants under various sections, such as 148, 149, 302, 120B, 379, 427, IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the I.E. Act, but in course of trial at the stage of examination of the accused persons under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the Addl. Sessions Judge by his order dated 29-8-95 acquitted as many as 20 accused persons under Section 232, Cr.P.C. and proceeded with the trial in respect of the remaining 2 accused persons who are the present appellants.
(2.) One surprising aspect of the case which we should mention at the very outset is that the Addl. Sessions Judge framed the charge in a peculiar manner which is quoted below :"Sri Milan Chatterjee, Addl. Sessions Judge, Hooghly hereby charge you 1. Muktar Khan ... 22. Samim Aktar as follows :That all of you on 9-12-92 at about 7-30 a.m. formed unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapons like bombs etc. having common intention and motive of causing riot and murder and in pursuance of your common intention you had hurled live bombs on Anuj Kumar Thakur, son of Chandra Kishore Thakur and caused his instant death there and (sic) by you in pursuance of your common intention committed therefrom different shops and houses and damages to different shops and houses and set fire on different shops, houses of the said area and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 302, 120B, 379, 427 with Sections 3 and 5 of the I.E. Act. And I hereby direct that you be tried by the said Court on the said charge. The charges are read over and explained to the accused persons who plead not guilty and claim to be tried."
(3.) We are really surprised at the manner in which a senior officer like Addl. Sessions Judge could frame a composite charge under one head in respect of a wide range of offences punishable under different provisions of law. Section 218(1), Cr.P.C. inter alia says that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused, there shall be a separate charge. It is therefore evident and it is also a matter of common sense and established practice that a large number of offences punishable under different provisions of law should not be jumbled up under one head of charge covering all the offences under such different provisions of law as has been done by theAddl. Sessions Judge in the present case. The Addl. Sessions Judge, we are painfully constrained to observe, has no basic conception about the manner in which charge is required to be framed under the provisions of law. The question whether such error or irregularity in the matter of framing of charge vitiates the trial or whether the accused is prejudiced by reason of such error or irregularity in the matter of framing of charge, is indeed a different question.;