EMPEROR Vs. PANCHKARI DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The confession of the prisoner Jibaiikrishna Sircar was recorded by the Honorary Presidency Magistrate, Rai Bahadur Dr. Haridhan Dutt on the 15 and the 16 December 1923. It was not retracted at any time during the commitment enquiry. In his statement before the Committing Magistrate at the close of the enquiry on the 10 April 1924, the prisoner said "I have said whatever I had to say to Dr. Haridhan Dutt in my statement before him." On the 19 May 1924 a petition, purporting to have been filed by the prisoner and bearing that date, was put up before me, retracting the confession.

(2.) The confession of the prisoner Haripada Mookerjee was recorded by the Honorary Presidency Magistrate Mr. S.N. Roy on the 13th, 14 and 15 December 1923. On the 17th December 1923, the prisoner along with his co-accused was put up before a Stipendiary Magistrate with a charge sheet submitted on that day and the case was adjourned to the 27th December 1923. On the last mentioned day a petition purporting to have been written by Haripada on the 23 December 1923 on paper evidently supplied to him by the jail authorities was presented before the Magistrate, retracting the confession made and recorded as aforesaid. The 23 of December was a Saturday and I am told that Saturday is the only day of the week on which prisoners in Jail are allowed to write letters.

(3.) In the petitions of retraction most of the grounds alleged for the confessions amount to charges of ill-treatment, torture, threat and coercion of the vilest and most brutal character, directed against Inspector Hemchandra Lahiri, the chief investigation officer in the case. Having heard the evidence in the case and taking into consideration all the circumstances disclosed therein, I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that these charges are unfounded. There is not a tittle of evidence in support of these charges; and no circumstances have been disclosed which might afford the remotest suggestion or inference of such conduct as having been likely on the part of this Police Officer; On the other hand, the circumstances which are proved in this case are utterly inconsistent with these charges. I most unhesitatingly state that now-a-days no Police Officer whatever his nationality or creed may be and however much he may happen to value his appointment or its emoluments would think of stooping so low as to resort to means of the description alleged for getting a confession from an accused person. I cannot but think that the story of coercion which these retractions tell is a pure invention; and it was really gratifying to find that not much use was made of it while this Police Officer was in the witness-box under cross-examination and that the learned Counsel appearing for the prisoners in the course of their arguments on the question of admissibility of the confessions made only the faintest allusion to the misconduct which the prisoners so graphically and emphatically portrayed in their retractions, These retractions are somewhat amusing too, in view of the manner in which acts and conduct on the part of the Inspector, which ultimately appeared to be the dictates of pure humanity or gentlemanliness, have been sought to be misconstrued and attributed to ulterior motives which must have been far away from his mind. It is unfortunate that the accused thought of resorting to these allegations, but I shall say no more of them as I disbelieve them in toto.