EMPEROR Vs. TARAK NATH BAIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C., The accused Tarak was charged under Section 471 and the other accused under Section 467 read with Section 109, I.P.C. The case was heard by a jury of 5 persons who brought in a unanimous verdict of not guilty on all the charges against all the accused. The evidence given was circumstantial. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge considered it so convincing and clear that he regarded it as essential for the ends o? justice to refer the case to this Court on the ground that the verdict of the jury was wrong and perverse and against the weight of evidence.

(2.) The case for the prosecution was that Akshoy and Gobardhan held a plot of land tinder one Hrishikesh. Hrishikesh sold his interest to the accused Tarak and to one Surendra in equal moieties. Surendra brought his 8 annas share in the name of his minor son Krishto. Akshoy and Gobardhan then took a lease of the land for five years from Tarak and Krishto and executed a registered Kabuliyat. When this lease expired, Tarak proposed a fresh Kabuliyat to which Akshoy and Gobardhan agreed, and they all went to the Sub-Registry Office at Alipore on 11 April 1932. The Kabuliyat was executed, but when they were about to register it, Akshoy and Gobardhan learnt from Tarak that it was in his favour alone for the whole of the land. On hearing this, Akahoy and Gobardhan refused to have the Kabuliyat registered. They continued in possession of the land and executed a Kabuliyat in favour of Krishto, the owner of the other moiety on 2 July, 1932. In December 1932 there was a riot which arose out of the cutting of paddy on the land and Gobardhan was murdered. Tarak and others were committed to Sessions on a charge of rioting and murder and they were tried in May Sessions, 1933.

(3.) The learned Judge then says in his letter of reference that Tarak propounded an Istafanama purported to have been executed by Akshoy and Gobardhan in 1932 and used it as a genuine document in support of his case. All the accused were acquitted. Subsequently an inquiry was held under Section 476, Criminal P.C., and a complaint was preferred against the present accused under Secs.471 and 467. According to the evidence in the present case the signatures of Akshoy and Gobardhan on the Istafanama were not genuine. The learned Judge remarks that the handwriting expert called by the prosecution was comparatively a novice and therefore he left out of consideration the opinion given by him and his evidence and directed the jury accordingly. But he considered that the guilt of the accused was established, because he thought that the evidence showed that Tarak had begun to devise means for ousting Akshoy and Gobardhan from the lands. That was the genesis of the Istafanama. This was shown by the Kabuliyat (Ex. 2) which Tarak had tried to persuade Akshoy and Gobardhan to register.