JUDGMENT 1. This is a Reference under the provisions of sec. 307, Cr.P.C. by the learned third Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs, disagreeing with the unanimous verdict of the jury in a trial which was held for an offence under sec. 302, I.P.C. The accused Tincouri Dhopi was charged under the provisions of sec. 302, I.P.C. with having committed the offence of murder in that he had killed a child named Pulin. He was tried before a jury and the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that the verdict was against the weight of evidence and that it was necessary for the ends of justice to make a reference to this Court and has accordingly laid the matter before this Court. The learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer appears in support of the, reference and has placed the evidence in the case before us. We also have had the advantage of hearing Mr. Amulya Chandra Sen on behalf of the accused. 2. The facts shortly are as follows:-On or about the 29th Falgoon, 1328, the prosecution witness No. 3, Swarnamoni Bewa, with her daughter Tustumoni Bewa (prosecution witness No. 4) and two boys named Jiten and Pulin went to the house of a relative of theirs on the occasion of the Dot festival. They stayed there for four or five days and then went to the house of one Sasthi Mondal. They stayed in Sasthi's house for a night or two and set out for home on the afternoon of Saturday, the 18th March. The party on the return journey consisted of the witness No. 3 Swarnamoni, witness No. 4 Tustumoni, witness No. 5 Jitendra Nath Gayen, witness No. 6 Bhim Chandra Haldar and the deceased Pulin. It appears that during the return journey the boys Jiten and Pulin and Bhim walked ahead of the others and the women who were talking to each other were at some distance behind the boys. It is alleged that the accused suddenly came out of a garden and tried to catch a bundle which the witness No. 5 Jiten was carrying on his head. Jiten raised an alarm and the accused let go his hold on Jiten and he caught Pulin up by the legs and dashed him several times on the ground. The witnesses Jiten and Bhim thereupon ran away. The witnesses Nos. Jiten raised an alarm and the accused let go his hold on Jiten and he caught Pulin up by the legs and dashed him several times on the ground. The witnesses Jiten and Bhim thereupon ran away. The witnesses Nos. 3 and 4 Swarna and Tustu ran up to the place where Pulin was being assaulted in the manner described above by the accused. Before, however, Swarna and Tustu could actually reach the place, the accused had taken to his heels. The witnesses Swarna and Bhim gave chase and it was found that the person who had been chased had got into a tank which is known as Narain's tank. Narain, who is witness No. 16, states that he was splitting some bamboos in his house. He saw a woman walking fast. She shouted out that a child had been murdered by a man. She asked if a man had passed that way. Then a boy said that a man had gone into the tank. He asked the woman if she would be able to recognize the man. She said "yes." The witness Swarna then went to the bank of the tank and caught the accused as he was coming out of the tank and made-him over to the villagers who had assembled on the bank of-the tank on hearing her cries, and she went back to the place where Putin was lying dead. The dead body was sent to the Diamond Harbour Hospital in charge of a constable, and Sarat Gayen, witness No. 2, who is a nephew of Swarna, thereafter lodged the first information at the thana. 3. The medical officer who held the post mortem examination found a contused lacerated wound below the point of the chin and another similar but large wound on the back of the head through which the skull bone and brain substance were protruding. The skull bone on the back and the side bones were smashed to pieces and the line of fracture extended to the base of the skull. In the opinion of the medical officer, death was due to the shock resulting from fracture of the skull and he further states that the boy Pulin could have come by the injuries found on him and from which he died, if a man held him by the legs and dashed him on the ground. 4. In the opinion of the medical officer, death was due to the shock resulting from fracture of the skull and he further states that the boy Pulin could have come by the injuries found on him and from which he died, if a man held him by the legs and dashed him on the ground. 4. The occurrence was witnessed by Swarna and Tustu Swarna states that as soon as her attention was drawn to the fact that Putin was being assaulted in the manner described above, she asked her daughter to look after the injured boy while she ran after the accused. She followed him for about half-a-mile and the accused then jumped into the tank. A boy who was standing there asked her what was the matter. She told him she was chasing a man who had killed her nephew Pulin and who had gone into the tank. As the accused came out of the tank she threw her sari round his neck and caught him. Many villagers had come up and she made over the accused to them. 5. Tustu Moni in her deposition says in so many words that she saw the face of the accused and she heard what Jiten had said, namely, that his bundle was being pulled by a man. After Jiten had raised the alarm and after the accused had let go his hold on Jiten, she saw the accused seize Pulin by the legs, pick him up and dash him to the ground three times. Then they, that is Swarna, Tustu and witness No. 6, started to run. The accused then threw the boy down and ran away. She says further that after her mother Swarna had started chasing the man, she stayed at the place where the boy was done to death and waited till her mother returned. 6. The witness No. 6 Jiten says that a man came from Satis doctor's garden and approached them; there was a bundle of clothes on his head; the man who came tried to seize the bundle. Thereupon he shouted out to his great aunt and held on to the bundle. The man let go his hold upon him and seized Pulin by the legs. Jiten dropped the bundle and began to run towards his great aunt. The man dashed Pulin to the ground several times. 7. Thereupon he shouted out to his great aunt and held on to the bundle. The man let go his hold upon him and seized Pulin by the legs. Jiten dropped the bundle and began to run towards his great aunt. The man dashed Pulin to the ground several times. 7. Witness No. 6, Bhim Chandra Haldar states that he was ahead of Pulin and Jiten. The accused came up to them and seized Jiten's bundle. The witness ran after Jiten and looked over his shoulder and saw the accused dash Pulin to the ground. He was going towards the north and reached the Musalmanpara before Jiten did; and he says further that he was standing at the side of the tank when Swarna reached the place of occurrence. When she followed the accused he threw clods of earth at her. The accused ran towards their village and the accused was lost sight of when he ran into a clump of bamboos. 8. The witness No. 11 Kristo Mohan Mandal says that he saw the accused run up and plunge into a tank. His aunt Swarna followed him. She was shouting all the time "Putin has been killed." His aunt seized the accused when he came out of the tank Other people came up and secured him. The accused was wearing a gamcha which was blood-stained. In cross-examination he says he saw the accused sitting in the verandah of Hossain (Narain's) house afterwards. He was wearing a gamcha. It was tied round his waist. His aunt caught him by putting the corner of the cloth (sari) round his neck. The accused said he did not kill the boy. He was sitting when they came into the house. 9. Then we have the evidence of Rash Behari Neogi who says he heard a woman shouting "my son has been murdered by a man who is running away." A man was running in front of her. This witness was in a position to identify the accused and he did identify the accused in the Sessions Court. He says further that the man who was running was going towards Khunkali. The witness followed him. He stumbled and fell. Later he found the man under arrest in the house of Ram Kanta Mondal. He was taken away to the place where the dead body was lying. 10. He says further that the man who was running was going towards Khunkali. The witness followed him. He stumbled and fell. Later he found the man under arrest in the house of Ram Kanta Mondal. He was taken away to the place where the dead body was lying. 10. Ram Kanta Naskar, witness No. 14, states that Swarna came to his house with her aunt and two boys Pulin and Jiten in Falgoon and went away about the 4th Chaitra taking his daughter-in-law Tustu with them. 11. Then we have the evidence of Uttam Chandra Mistri who says the accused was employed under him as a labourer and he used to smoke ganja. He used to take it in the morning and in the evening. 12. Then we have the evidence of Naran Chandra Mistri who has already been referred to above, Lastly we have the evidence of Kunja Lal Naskar and Ramanath Mondal who speak to the fact that they knew the accused. They saw Swarna run up shouting that murder had been committed and that the murderer was running away. There was a boy standing near the bank of the tank who had seen the accused run away. The witness Kunja asked the boy about the man. He said that the man had plunged into the tank. They went towards the east through Karim's compound. The man was leaning against the wall of the verandah. The woman, that is, Swarna, identified him as the murderer and asked them to arrest him. He was arrested by a man named Khajan Mal. 13. This is practically all the evidence in the case and on this evidence there cannot be any manner of doubt that the boy Pulin was killed by the accused and that the act of killing such as has been described above amounted to murder. It would, therefore, appear that the accused was guilty of having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of sec. 302, I.P.C. 14. It has been urged, however, that the identity of the accused has not been sufficiently established. On this point it is sufficient to refer to the evidence of Swarna and Tustu, of the witness Jiten and of the witness Bhim Haldar. In addition to this body of evidence there is the testimony of Krista Mondal, Rash Behary Neogi and Kunja Naskar. On this point it is sufficient to refer to the evidence of Swarna and Tustu, of the witness Jiten and of the witness Bhim Haldar. In addition to this body of evidence there is the testimony of Krista Mondal, Rash Behary Neogi and Kunja Naskar. We see no reason whatsoever to reject the evidence of these persons and to come to the conclusion that the identity of the accused has not been established. In our opinion the evidence which has been referred to above, that is to say, the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the evidence of the other persons whose names have been referred to above point conclusively to the fact that it was the accused and the accused only who was responsible for the death of Pulin. 15. It is next said that the story of the chase is such that no reliance can be placed on it. We have examined the evidence and we are unable to say that the story of the chase is so unnatural as it has been alleged by the defense that no reliance can be placed on the same. We think under the circumstances that the chase was perfectly natural and there are no reasons whatsoever for thinking that the story of the chase as related by the witnesses whose names have been mentioned above is untrue in any particular. 16. The medical evidence shows that the deceased, having regard to the injuries which had been inflicted on him, could have come by his death by being dashed on the ground several times. The only thing that can legitimately be urged on behalf of the accused in a case of this description is that having regard to the way in which the murder was committed and having regard to the fact that there is practically no evidence of motive, it ought to be inferred that the accused at the time when he committed the murder was suffering from some severe mental derangement and that he was not responsible for the act which he committed. As will be seen later, we have taken this plea into our consideration, and we think there is good reason for coming to the conclusion that the accused must have been at the time, having regard to the fact that he was a habitual ganja smoker, in such a state of mind that he was not responsible for his action. 17. The accused has not taken any plea under the provisions of sec. 84 of the Indian Penal Code, and having regard to the evidence on the record this is not a case which comes under the provisions of sec. 84, I.P.C. or of sec. 85 but falls within the provision of sec. 86, I.P.C. We think that the ends of justice will be met if a sentence of transportation for life is passed on the accused. This is obviously not a case where the capital sentence should be passed and as has just been indicated we do not propose to pass the capital sentence on the accused. But we think that the accused ought to be convicted under sec. 302, I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer, transportation for life and we direct that the accused Tincouri Dhopi be transported for life. 18. Having regard, however, to the facts of this case we think that the attention of the Local Government may be drawn to this case under the provisions of sec. 401, Cr.P.C. and the Local Government may be invited to take such action as it thinks proper under the provisions of that section, and we direct that the records of this case together with a copy of our judgment be forwarded to the Local Government for their consideration.