Jankey Rai vs Emperor

Das, J.—The petitioners have been convicted in a summary trial u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 40 each.

The law requires that a Magistrate or a Bench of Magistrates should in a summary trial give a brief statement of the reasons for conviction. The learned Magistrate hearing the case has first of all considered the theory put forward on behalf of the defence and rejected that theory as rather fantastic. Then dealing with the prosecution case he says: "The prosecution case has been fully proved by the evidence of 3 witnesses, besides the medical evidence." So far as the medical evidence is concerned, obviously it does not touch the petitioners because their case is that there was undoubtedly a mar peet in which other persons took part. I cannot accept a judgment in a single line as a judgment in accordance with law. The course adopted by the learned Magistrate has necessitated my going through the evidence in the case and having gone through the evidence I am of opinion that there is a very grave doubt whether the assault was in fact committed by the petitioners.

I would, therefore, set aside the conviction and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded to the petitioners.