BAYADAS BOWRI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a Welfare State the stance of the Public Prosecutor must be in harmony with the Preamble, the Directive Principles and in symphony with the threefold pillars of Article 21 of the Constitution†" 'fair, just and reasonable'. A Public Prosecutor under the Constitutional Law as well as the Criminal P. C. must have the strength 'not to disown the poor or bend his knees before the insolent might'. He should have strength to raise his mind high above the daily strifes and surrender his strength that he derives from law to the services of the people with love. Lawyer's assistance is invaluable to a Judge and Justice may be defeated if the Public Prosecutor fails to lay all the cards fairly and squarely before the Court to enable it to look into the materials in the midst of voluminous records. A judgment is the reflection of the learning of 'the Bar' and is a contribution of the lawyer. Justice is blind †" 'Justice discards party, friendship and kindred and is, therefore, represented as blind' ('Joseph Eden 'The Spectator'). A Judge is not interested in either of the party to the litigation †" the State or the subject. It is immaterial who Wins or loses. The prime duty and concern of judiciary is 'to do justice within the four corners of law'. However, often judges struggle for justice confroned with laws which at first blush may not appear to be in conformity with justice. At this juncture lawyer's assistance is an invaluable asset to the Judge. A Public Prosecutor is appointed by the State to uphold its case but not 'to trample justice'. The duty of the Public Prosecutor is not to win a case by hook or by crook. 'Persecution' cannot be the object of a Welfare State nor the aim and object of the Public Prosecutor be projected to achieve that end. A Public Prosecutor must be 'an open book'. Fair, just impartial and ever ready to unfold all material facts fairly and squarely to uphold the cause of justice, no matter in whose favour justice flows. In the instant case, we are charmed by the conduct of Shri Achyut Chandra Deka who has done his constitutional duty and performed his obligation in the true spirit of the Constitution and the law. He has assisted a disabled indigent accused 'in the year of disabled persons', placed before us all facts in favour of the State as well as the indigent accused. He has acted in the true tradition of the noble profession to which he belongs. We deem it our duty to record our satisfaction and proceed to dispose of the case on its merit.

(2.) THE appellant is an indigent, belongs to backward classes (a tea garden labourer) and he had lost his right palm and was a disabled at all relevant period. He has been convicted Under Section 302, IPC and he is 'a lifer' i. e. sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(3.) IT is the prosecution case itself that at the time when the incident happend nobody was present except the deceased and the accused. The accused claims that he was mercilessly assaulted by the deceased with a bamboo post, sustained 'bodily injuries' whereupon he exercised his 'right of private defence.' It is also the prosecution case that the left -handed appellant dealt only one blow and made good his escape. No second blow was given. The case entirely depended on 'the dying declaration of the deceased' wherein the deceased uttered that the accused was his assailant. The evidence is fortified by the statement of the accused in his confession read with his avowals in Court recorded by the trial Judge.