Surja Kurmi Vs. Queen-empress

Surja Kurmi vs Queen-empress

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jan 10, 1898

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/859063

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/859063
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Hill and ;Stevens, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 10, 1898
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Jury, Irregularity in trial of case by - Trial by Jury of an offence triable with assessors--Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1882), Sections 306, 307, 536--Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Sections 240, 241--Government Notification of 1862. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Surja Kurmi

Respondent

Queen-empress

Legal References

Reported In: (1898)ILR25Cal555

Excerpt

jury, irregularity in trial of case by - trial by jury of an offence triable with assessors--criminal procedure code (act x of 1882), sections 306, 307, 536--penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 240, 241--government notification of 1862. - .....so had.5. we are of opinion that the conviction, as it stands, cannot be supported. the case was 'tried by a jury' within the meaning of section 536 of the code of criminal procedure, and under the provisions of that section the trial was not invalid on the ground only that the case had been so tried, although the offence in question was triable with the aid of assessors. the trial by the jury was complete when they bad returned their verdict, and the judge was bound to act either under section 306 or under section 307 of the code of criminal procedure, that is, he was bound either to give judgment in accordance with the verdict, or to submit the case for orders of this court, if he disagreed with the verdict, and was clearly of opinion that reference to this court was necessary for the ends of justice.6. we are supported in this view by the decision in the case of in the matter of bhootnath dey, (1879) 4 c. l. r., 405.7. we set aside the conviction and remand the case to the sessions judge in order that he may deal with it according to law by passing an order under either section 306 or section 307 of the code of criminal procedure.

Full Judgment

Hill and Stevens, JJ.

1. The appellant was committed to the Court of Session for trial on the charge of having committed an offence punishable under Section 240 of the Indian Penal Code. At the sessions the case was tried by a jury, which by a majority of four to one found the appellant not guilty and returned a verdict accordingly.

2. The learned Sessions Judge records that he was about to refer the case to this Court under the provisions of Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when it was brought to his notice that the case was triable, not by a jury, but with the aid of assessors.

3. The course which the Sessions Judge then adopted was to treat the verdict of the jury as the opinions of assessors and to record a judgment convicting the appellant under Section 241 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to be rigorously imprisoned for two years.

4. The appellant has now appealed against the conviction so had.

5. We are of opinion that the conviction, as it stands, cannot be supported. The case was 'tried by a jury' within the meaning of Section 536 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and under the provisions of that Section the trial was not invalid on the ground only that the case had been so tried, although the offence in question was triable with the aid of assessors. The trial by the jury was complete when they bad returned their verdict, and the Judge was bound to act either under Section 306 or under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that is, he was bound either to give judgment in accordance with the verdict, or to submit the case for orders of this Court, if he disagreed with the verdict, and was clearly of opinion that reference to this Court was necessary for the ends of justice.

6. We are supported in this view by the decision in the case of In the matter of Bhootnath Dey, (1879) 4 C. L. R., 405.

7. We set aside the conviction and remand the case to the Sessions Judge in order that he may deal with it according to law by passing an order under either Section 306 or Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Same Parties Surja Kurmi vs Queen-empress Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Hill and ;Stevens, JJ.

Criminal