Patna High Court
Bazari Hajam And Anr. vs Emperor on 20 December, 1921
Equivalent citations: 68IND. CAS.958, AIR 1922 PATNA 73
JUDGMENT John Bucknill, J.
1. This is an appeal by two persons named Baziri Hajam and Barbmdeo Kahar who were convicted by the Officiating Sessions Judge of Shahsbad on the 30th of September of this year and sentenced respectively to three years' rigorous imprisonment the first accused for false impersonation under Section 82(c) of the Indian Registration Act and the record accused under Section 82(d) of the same Act.
2. The circumstances under which these convictions were recorded are somewhat unusual and both the Assessors thought that the evidence was not sufficient to justify the accused being condemned.
3. In the first place, it must be admitted, and in indeed admitted by the Officiating Sessions Judge, that, with one exception, there was no material against either of the accused. The story upon which the prosecution was based was that a certain deed purporting to have been executed by one Ram Prasad Pande at the Koilwar Sub-Registry Office at the end of March of this year, was not, in fact, executed by that individual but was executed by the first accused who represented this Ram Prasad Pande and incidentally placed his thumb impression upon the document. That in all. Now, when the accused wan brought before the Court--both in the Magistrate's Court arid in the Sessions Court, an altogether unusual practice, and one which I cannot but too strongly deprecate, was followed by (in some way or other, I do not understated how) obtaining a thumb print of the accused and, then, after having done so, a gentlemen from the Finger Print Criminal Department was called in each Court, who thereupon, by means of his codes of finger print, declared to the Magistrate and to the Officiating Sessions Judge that the thumb narks on the deed and on the paper which had teen marked by the accused in Court were identical. This is the only piece of evidence of any cogency whatever against the accused. I think that, apart from the fact that I should be rather sorry without any other corroborative circumstances, to convict a person of a serious crime solely and entirely upon similarly of thumb marks or finger prints, the very fact of the taking of a thumb impression from an accused person for the purpose of possible manufacture of the evidence by which he could be incriminated, is, in itself, sufficient to warrant one in setting aside the conviction upon the understanding and upon the assumption that such was not really a fair trial.
4. I know of no law by which an accused person can be either by words or by gestures or by exposing himself to certain physical treatment, made to implicate himself in the crime with whish he is charged. When be is on trial such an idea is highly repugnant to all thoughts of tie proper administration of justice in this or in any other British country. I think, therefore, that it is impossible that these convictions and sentences should be supported, that they must be set aside and the accused must be enlarged.
Das, J.
5. I agree I ought to add that the balance of the evidence, in my opinion, is entirely in favour of the appellants. It is not denied that Ram Prasad had, in fast, executed a sale-deed in favour of his step-mother, Musammat Anandia, and his wife, Musammat Etwaro Kuer. It is of course suggested that the document was taken from him by undue influence or by force; it does not matter which, but the important fact is that the execution of the document by Ram Prasad, is not denied.
5. The sole question which the learned Sessions Judge had to try was, did Ram Prasad himself present the document for registration before the Registration authority; or, the appellant Bazari impersonated Ram Prasad before the registration authority, the prosecution case is based on two important fasts, first, that Ram Prasad was minor and that it is highly improbable that any Registration authority would have registered a document presented (as it must have been) by a minor; and, secondly, that Ram Prasad was so ill at that time that it is highly improbable that he could have presented tie document before the Registration authority. The learned Sessions Judge discoursed be these points. On the first point, he same to the conclusion that the evidence on behalf of the prosecution was unsatisfactory and that it did not establish that Ram Prasad was, in fact a miner on the 29th of March 1921. On the second point again, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that the prosecution evidence is unconvincing. Therefore, it seems to me that it was dangerous to convict the appellants on the sole testimony of the finger print expert.
6. Now the learned Sessions Judge considered the point whether the evidence of the finger print expert received any corroboration. He conceded that the appellants could not be convicted without such corroboration but be has recorded a finding to the effect that the evidence of the finger print expert had received corroboration, Now the view of the learned Session's Judge is this: He says, first of all, that the accused are residents of the village with which the executants of the document, that is to say, Ram Prasad and Rim Chandra Pande, are connected. The learned Sessions Judge thinks that this evidence corroborate, the testimony of the finger print experts Secondly, the learned Sessions Judge was impressed by the fact that the complainant mentioned the name of the accused very early in the proceedings. He also took that as another corroborating circumstance.
7. I wholly disagree with the view of the learned Sessions Judge. This evidence, in my opinion, does not at all corroborate the evidence of the finger print expert. I agree with my learned brother that it was extremely dangerous to take the finger print impression of an accused person in a Court of Law. I agree that the convictions are unsustainable and that the convictions and sentences of the accused persons must be set aside.