EMPEROR Vs. DIP NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal of one Dip Narain, who was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class of an offence punishable under Sections 211/109 of the Indian Penal Code, but acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of Azamgarh on appeal. As a matter of fact nine persons were put on their trial before the Magistrate, all of whom were convicted and all of whom appealed. The Sessions Judge dismissed seven of the appeals, but acquitted Dip Narain and one Musammat Talia. There has been no appeal against the acquittal of the latter.

(2.) The task before us is a simpler one than was before the courts below, as many matters which were in controversy there have been accepted in argument in this Court as fully established by the evidence. We find that Gaya, Sunar, resident of Shahzadpur in the Fyzabad district, was on bad terms with his relatives, Sarju and Lachhman. He somehow or other came to believe that a false charge brought against these persons could be successfully prosecuted, if suitable measures were taken, before a certain Bench of Honorary Magistrates exercising jurisdiction at Azamgarh. He came in to Azamgarh for that purpose, and there got into communication with various persons, including Gulab, Sunar, and one Muhammad Ishaq, a dealer in timber. A conspiracy was hatched for the filing of a false complaint before a Bench of Honorary Magistrates consisting of Raja Muhammad Shah and Babu Krishan Deo Narain Singh. Salaran, Teli, of Azamgarh was employed to come forward as complainant; and it seems to us perfectly clear on the evidence - if indeed this much also has not been practically conceded in argument before us - that there were members of the conspiracy who professed to be able to ensure its success by bringing improper influence to bear on Babu Krishan Deo Narain Singh. Accordingly, on the 3rd of April, 1914, Salaran filed a complaint before the Honorary Magistrates already named, in which he falsely charged Sarju and Lachhman with having committed, within the jurisdiction of the said Magistrates, offences punishable under Sections 323, 406 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. Salaran was examined on his complaint and put in a list of witnesses. We cannot refrain from remarking that a magistrate of experience could scarcely have helped seeing that the story told by Salaran was a most extraordinary one, and that even if it might prove on inquiry that there was some truth in the other allegations made by him, the story of the assault said to have been committed by Sarju and Lachhman on the 1st of April bore every appearance of being a piece of imaginative embroidery. The Honorary Magistrates, however, took cognizance of the complaint as one of causing hurt (under Section 323, Indian Penal Code) only, and issued process for the attendance of the accused parsons and of the witnesses named by Salaran, fixing the 17th of April, 1914, for the trial. On that date Sarju and Lachhman, having come to Azamgarh and secured the services of Sheikh Faiyaz Husain, a local mukhtar, presented a petition before the Sub-divisional Magistrate asking for a transfer of the case against them to some other court. There were allegations made in this petition which satisfied the Sub-divisional Magistrate that prompt action was called for on his part. He transferred the complaint of Salaran to his own file, and went over in person to the court of the Honorary Magistrates to take possession of the record and secure the attendance before himself of the complainant and his witnesses. The falsity of the complaint was at once disclosed. Salaran absconded. His witnesses denied all knowledge of the affair. The complaint was dismissed, and the Sub-divisional Magistrate initiated a proceeding under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which resulted in the trial out of which the present appeal has arisen.

(3.) As against Dip Narain the case for the prosecution is that he was an active member of the conspiracy which organized the institution by Salaran of his false complaint of the 3rd of April, 1914, and more particularly that he was the member to whom the others looked as the instrument through which improper influence was to be brought to bear on the Honorary Magistrate, Babu Krishan Deo Narain Singh.