PRODYOT KUMAR BHATTACHARJYA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused Prodyot Kumar Bhattacharji was tried by three Commissioners appointed under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1925 on charges under Secs.302/120-B, 302/34 and 302/114, I.P. C, and also under Section 19(f), Arms Act. The Commissioners unanimously found him guilty under Section 302/120-B, I.P.C., and also under Section 302- 34, I.P. C, and convicted him accordingly under the said two sections. As regards the charge under Section 302/114, I.P. C, the Commissioners stated that having regard to their finding on the said other two charges they did not convict him under this charge and the accused was thereupon acquitted of the charge under Section 302/114, I.P.C. As regards the charge under Section 19(f), Arms Act, the accused was found guilty and convicted accordingly. So far as the sentence on the accused was concerned two of the Commissioners were of opinion that having regard to the circumstances disclosed on the evidence on record nothing could be said in mitigation of the sentence of death and they accordingly directed that the accused should be hanged by the neck until he was dead. The other Commissioner Mr. J. De was of opinion that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met by the accused being sentenced to transportation for life. The dissenting Commissioner has purported to write a judgment differing from the majority of the Commissioners on the question of sentence and a question has been raised whether, having regard to the language of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act 1925, and the rules made thereunder, the dissenting Commissioner was competent to write a separate judgment of his own. On this question we shall have something to say later on.

(2.) After the conclusion of the trial before the Commissioners the records of the proceedings were submitted to this Court by Mr. Burge, Deputy Magistrate, Midnapore and it has been argued before us by learned Counsel on behalf of the accused that Mr. Burge was incompetent to submit the records of the proceedings to the High Court and that the proper persons who could have submitted the records were the Commissioners and not the District Magistrate. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the accused that the reference is incompetent and that we cannot legally go into the question of the confirmation of the sentence of death passed on the accused and that the only course open to us is to retransmit the records to the place where from they were sent. This contention, in our opinion, has absolutely no substance and in this connexion we would content ourselves by drawing attention to Section 3(2), Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Supplementary) Act, 1925, which runs as follows: When the Commissioners pass a sentence of death the record of the proceedings before them shall be submitted to the High Court and the sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court which shall exercise, in respect of such proceedings, all the powers conferred on the High Court by Chap. 27 of the Code.

(3.) (After considering the facts and discussing evidence the judgement proceeded). As stated above, we have examined the entire record from cover to cover with a single desire to find out the truth and we are bound to state that the prosecution has satisfactorily brought home to the accused his guilt in this matter. We are therefore in agreement with the Commissioners in holding that the accused has been rightly convicted under the sections referred to above including the section relating to the offence under the Arms Act. In coming to this conclusion we have not overlooked the significance of the medical evidence and the case for the prosecution that the bullets which killed Mr. Douglas were of 380 bore and that these were apparently not fired by the accused.