Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is a Reference under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Three men Mathuranath De, a Sub-Inspector of Police in-charge of the Bijni Thana in the District of Goalpara Syed Habibar Rahaman, an Inspector of Police and Manmathanath Ghose, the Officiating Superintendent of Police of Goalpara were put on their trial on charges under Sections 120(B). 193, 201, 217, 218 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The common charge against all the three accused persons was under Section 120 (B) read with Sections 193 201, 217, 218 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Over and above this common charge the special charges against Mathuranath De were under Sections 193, 201, 217 and 506 The special charge against Syed Habibar Rahaman was under Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code and the special charges against M.N. Ghose were under Sections 217, 2l8 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial was held with the aid of a Jury consisting of 5 Jurors. The Jury unanimously found all the three accused men not guilty of any of the charges. The learned Judge could not agree with this verdict and being clearly of opinion that the charges against the accused had been fully established referred the case to this Court under Section 307 of the Code of criminal Procedure.

17. The grounds on which the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code must fail cannot however apply to the charges under Sections 217 and 218 because for a conviction under either of these two sections:

18. It is not necessary as in the case of a charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code to establish that an offence has actually been committed: see in this connection the case of the Empress v. Amiruddeen 3 C. 412. It would be sufficient if the circumstances are such that a reasonable inference can be drawn therefrom that the accused had a certain knowledge at the time he did the act, namely, a knowledge that he was likely by his act to save a person from legal punishment. There is no doubt that the Sub-Inspector, Mathura, when he failed to take any action under Sections 157 and 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, knowingly disobeyed the directions of law and there is no doubt' that the Superintendent of Police, Mr. Ghose, submitted his reports, Exs. 38, 4 and 30, framing them in a manner which he knew to be incorrect. But before the Sub Inspector can be convicted under Section 217 and Mr. Ghose under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be established that when they did that they knew it to be likely that they would thereby save some one from legal punishment. Whether they had this requisite knowledge or not can be inferred only from the circumstances of the case. In the present case, we have got the fact that they knew that Sajaraddin had died from gun-shot wounds during the Police raid on the night of the 27th. There is also the fact that although they had this knowledge they did not face it boldly, made no attempt to find out how the incident had happened but deliberately tried to show that Sajaraddin's death was only a natural death-the Superintendent of Police by submitting reports which were not correct and the Sub-Inspector going a good deal further and threatening people and tutoring them to say that Sajaraddin had died a natural death, a thing which to his knowledge was untrue. For the defence it maybe contended that the accused took the incident to be pure accident and, therefore, they could not be said to have known it to be likely that by their action they would pave somebody from legal punishment. But this contention would be sustainable if the accused were absolutely certain that the incident was a pure accident and could not have been anything but an accident, but the inspection of the dead body by the Daroga and the report which reached the other two accused had nothing in them from which a reasonable man could have possibly thought that Sajaraddin's death could not have been anything, but a pure accident for which no one could be held legally punishable. That the accused could not have thought that the incident was only a pure accident and could not have been anything but an accident would appear pretty clear from their subsequent conduct, if they were certain that the incident was only a pure accident there would have been no necessity whatsoever for all those attempts at getting up a false story of natural death. The way in which the Sub-Inspector and the Superintendent of Police acted in the matter cannot, in my judgment, be explained in any other way than on the theory that they must have realised that some offence might have been committed and that, therefore knew it to be likely that by their act they would save somebody from legal punishment. The ingredients of an offence under Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code, against Sub-Inspector Mathura and of an offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code against the Superintendent of Police Mr. Ghose were in my judgment, established in the case.

19. There is a charge against Inspector Habibar Rahaman and the Superintendent of Police under Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code for their having failed to take any action under Sections 154, 157 and 174 read with Section 551 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I was said that under Section 551 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Inspector as also the Superintendent of Police, both of whom were Police Officers superior in rank to an officer in-charge of a Police Station were bound to take action under Sections 154, 157 and 174 read with Section 551 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I was said that under Section 551 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Inspector as also the superintendent of Police, both the whom were Police Officers superior in rank to an officer in-charge of a Police Station were bound to take action under Sections 154, 157 and 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 551 the aid of which has been invoked by the prosecution could apply to the present case only if the word "may" in that section is to be read as "must." but there is no authority for the proposition that the word "may" in Section 551 means "must". The charge under Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code against the Inspector as also against the Superintendent of Police must therefore, in my opinion, fail.

24. I would sentence Mathura Nath De to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 Indian Penal Code, 6 months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 217, Indian Penal Code, and 6 months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 120 (B), Indian Penal Code and would sentence the Superintendent of Police M. N Ghose to 9 months' rigorous imprisonment on each of the three counts under Section 218 and 9 months' rigorous imprisonment under 120 (B) Indian Penal Code. The sentence in each casa will run concurrently. In awarding sentence I have taken into consideration the other consequences to the accused which may follow this conviction.