JUDGMENT 1. In this case on a trial by Jury before the Sessions Judge of Jessore the Appellant, Ofel Mollah, has been convicted of an offence punishable under sec. 328 and sec. 304, I. P. C., and sentenced to transportation for ten years. The case against him was hat on the 8th of December last he had administered arsenic mixed with sugar to two boys Kasem and Hakim and had thereby caused the death of Kasem and hurt to Hakim. 2. In appeal it is urged that the learned Sessions Judge's charge to the Jury is vitiated by misdirection and that a retrial should be ordered. 3. We have gone through the whole of the record, and, after carefully considering the charge, are constrained to the conclusion that it is open to the objections taken. 4. No doubt the learned Sessions Judge did inform the Jury that it was for them to weigh the evidence with care and caution and that on questions of fact they were not bound by any opinion of his. But it is doubtful whether the isolated passages in which these warnings were given were sufficient to outweigh the fact that throughout the charge, for instance, in his observations on the criticisms levelled against the first information, on the evidence of Abadulla re the addition or admixture of cocoanut, on the question of the reliability of Monaulla's evidence, on the Kabiraj witness's treatment of the boy Hakim for cholera and on the evidence regarding the Appellant's absence or disappearance from the village, he has expressed his own opinion in terms too dogmatic and unqualified. 5. We next find that so far as appears, when discussing the boy Hakim's evidence and the statement of the Kabiraj regarding the name mentioned to him, the learned Sessions Judge made no reference to Hakim's evidence before the Committing Magistrate and no reference to the opening statements in the boy's depositions in the Sessions Court. 5. We next find that so far as appears, when discussing the boy Hakim's evidence and the statement of the Kabiraj regarding the name mentioned to him, the learned Sessions Judge made no reference to Hakim's evidence before the Committing Magistrate and no reference to the opening statements in the boy's depositions in the Sessions Court. Further, though when discussing the questions of the accused's absence from his village, the Sessions Judge does say "would he (the accused) behave like that if the poisoning were accidental;" it nowhere else appears that he place I before the Jury this aspect of the case and warned the Jury that before drawing inferences against the accused they must first be satisfied that he knew of the presence of arsenic in the sugar, and that the evidence negatived the possibility of accident or mistake. 6. Similarly it does not appear that he warned the Jury that before using the Chemical Examiner's report they must be satisfied on the evidence that the substances examined were in fact what they were said to be. 7. Lastly, while discussing the question of the accused's absence or disappearance from his village, not only does the Sessions Judge, as we have already said, express his own opinion on the evidence in too unqualified terms but he has further failed to warn the Jury that even if they believed he did abscond, absconding is not necessarily or invariably incompatible with innocence. On the whole we are not satisfied that the case was fairly and fully placed before the Jury. We therefore set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the Appellate be retried. As the learned Sessions Judge appears to have formed a strong opinion on this case, we further direct that the retrial be held before the Sessions Court of Khulna.