EMPEROR Vs. NRITYA GOPAL ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Reference under the provisions of Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Sessions Judge of Hooghly with reference to the case of ten accused persons, now before us, who along with eight others were tried before a jury. With regard to the latter, the verdict of the jury has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. The accused persons were tried on charges under Secs.147, 304 read with Secs.149, 325 read with Section 34 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge disagreed with the verdict of the jury with reference to the ten accused persons before us and has, under the provisions of Section 307, referred the case of the ten accused persons to this Court for its orders.

(2.) The facts have been very fully and exhaustively set out in the learned Sessions Judge's charge to the jury and also in the letter of reference to this Court and, therefore, it will not be necessary for us to repeat the same in detail. Briefly stated, it appears that there is a person of the name of Nritya Gopal Roy in village Sachanari in the district of Hooghly, and within the jurisdiction of the Arambagh Police Station. He is apparently a person of considerable wealth and influence in the village, but he is given to dissolute habits, and it is stated that some time before the date of the occurrence he brought a prostitute of the name of Kallidasi to the village and housed her near the houses of respectable villagers. These latter remonstrated with Nritya Gopal and for some time past, there has been considerable tension of feeling between Nritya Gopal and his adherents on the one side and the people who were opposed to him in the village. Proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal P. C. were started by both parties against their respective adversaries and there has been, as stated above, considerable friction, between the two parties owing to this and other reasons. It is alleged that on the 1 Baisak last, corresponding to 16 April, 1922, Nritya Gopal accompanied by some of his adherents came to the house of one of his opponents named Surendra Sarkar. There a person of the name of Safulla Thakur, who was a Brahmin by caste, was sitting at that time in the Baitakkhana of his master and Bhikkabhai Surendra Sarkar. Nritya Gopal with two of the accused, Rakhal and Nogen came and began to taunt Safulla. Safulla remonstrated with the party but to no effect and thereupon, it is alleged, Nritya Gopal gave orders to his men to attack Safulla. It is alleged that under the orders of Nritya Gopal accused No. 7 Nerode Adak gave Safulla a lathi blow. Safulla was-severely wounded and was carried to a sugar-cane field where he was further struck several times by means of lathis at the instance of Nritya Gopal and some of his adherents. Meanwhile two of the servants of Surendra Sarkar named Nibaran Bagdi and Sarada Bagdi who were sitting in the baitakkhana of Surendra when Safulla was attacked, came to the rescue of Safulla. Their intrusion wass resented by Nritya Gopal's men and the accused Rakhal, it is alleged, speared; Nibaran in the abdomen and the accused Nogen Adak speared Sarada. At or about this time the assault on Safulla had proceeded so far that he lost his consciousness, and thereafter, it is alleged, Safulla was carried to Nritya Gopal's house. Safulla's clothes had been smeared with) blood and it was thought necessary that his clothes should be changed. This was accordingly done in Nritya Gopal's house. He was thereafter taken to the house of the accused Rakhal where he was kept for some considerable time. Afterwards, he was carried to the house of certain persons who have been described in this Reference as the "Tellies" and at this last place ones of the "Tellies" a person of the name of Subodh Dey was severely assaulted by the rioters. Safulla, thereafter, was carried to the Sadar door of Surendra Sarkar and was left there. The two persons who had been struck by means of spears Nibaran and Sarada, died shortly after As regards Safulla he recovered after lapse off a considerable time from the effects of the wounds which had been inflicted on him. News of this assault was taken to the police station which is at a distance of 12 miles from the scene of the occurrence, by one of the Tellies, namely a person called Kamikha Dey. He apparently was not, at the time when he started for the police station, fully acquainted with all that had happened. His information has been commented upon as not being exhaustive and sufficiently full of the incidents spoken to later on, by the prosecution witnesses. Investigation was commenced by the police officers on the following day. Nibaran and Sarada, died shortly thereafter. During the course of the police investigation it was found that the accused persons and other persons belonging to their camp had all left the village, and the police officers had considerable difficulty in tracing them out and in collecting informations as regards the occurrence. The evidence as against the accused personsihas been divided by the learned Sessions Judge in his charge to the jury and also in his letter of Reference to this Court, under four heads -the first head being the assault on Safulla at the house of Surendra Sarkar, the second part of the case being concerned with the incidents which had happened when Safulla was carried to the sugarcane field and thence to the house of Nritya Gopal and thence to the house of Rakhal. The third part of the case related to the incidents which took place at the house of the Tellies and the fourth part of the case related to the incidents which took place when Safulla was carried to the Sadar door of his master.

(3.) With reference to the first part of the case there are two witnesses who speak to it, namely, Safulla and the witness Brojonath. With reference to the second part of case, not less than seven witnesses speak to the same but with reference to the first two of the seven witnesses who speak to the second part of the case, the learned Judge has very fairly put before the jury and also in the letter of Reference, circumstances indicating, in his opinion, that these two witnesses, namely, Chandy Charan De and Babu Ram De were not witnesses on whose testimony implicit reliance could be placed. He has, however, discussed fully the evidence of the five remaining witnesses.