KING-EMPEROR Vs. DHANANJAY RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused Dhananjay Ray was charged with an offence under Section 211, Indian Penal Code. The jury unanimously found him not guilty. The Sessions Judge, however, was of opinion that the verdict was not in accordance with the evidence and thought it necessary in the interests of justice to submit the case to the High Court.

(2.) The case against the accused may be briefly stated. On the 6 October, 1922, the accused, who was the tahsildar of the Khararia Zemindars, lodged a first information at Mollahat police station against Ramgachia, Premchand and eleven other persons. His story shortly was that on the 4 October, while proceeding in a boat, he was accosted by the accused persons. Two of them, Ramgachia and Premchand, threatened him with does, forced him to unlock his box and stole Rs. 150. The police authorities made some arrests on the 9th October, but were not as expeditious in the conduct of their enquiry as the accused desired. The result was that on the 31 October, he lodged a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Bagerhat. On the 16 November, the police submitted a report that the case was false, and on the 13 December, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, dismissed the complaint as false under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. On the next day the present prosecution was instituted.

(3.) Witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, and the accused himself was examined under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. His defence in substance was that the information he had lodged was true. The Judge summed up the case fully and fairly. The jury retired, and in a few minutes, brought in a unanimous verdict of not guilty. The Judge, as we have already stated, held that the verdict was inconsistent with a sober estimate of the evidence and made this reference. In his letter of reference, he states that "the accused has connections of considerable influence and position, and I am constrained to the opinion that this has not been without its effect on the verdict returned at his trial."