EMPEROR Vs. BENT PRAMANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C., made by the Sessions Judge of Pabna by a letter of reference dated 23 November 1934. Eight persons Benat Pramanik, Goyanath Sarkar, Kasi Pramanik, Baser Fakir Sukurali Sardar alias Sukra, Mallik Pramanik, Bhowani Charan Sarkar and Jagannath Chanda were put on their trial before a Jury on charges of murder and conspiracy. The jury unanimously acquitted all the eight accused persons of the charge of murder and also the last four out of the eight accused of the charge of conspiracy. But they convicted Benat Pramanik, Gayanath Sarkar, Kasi Pramanik and Baser Fakir of the charge of conspiracy to murder, and it is with regard to these four persons that this reference has been made to this Court.

(2.) The learned Judge disagreed with the verdict of the Jury and he was very emphatically of opinion that these four persons ought not to have been found guilty of an offence under Section 120-B read with Section 302, I.P.C. In the opinion of the learned Judge the accused persons ought to have been acquitted, and in his view the evidence recorded in the case did not justify an inference either that there was a conspiracy at all, or that any one of the accused persons was a party to the conspiracy. The case put forward by the prosecution in outline amounts to this: at 11 p.m. on 17 June 1934 a man named Sonatan Goon living at a place called Madla in the police district Shahajadpur came to the police station and there stated that in the evening Suresh Chandra Biswas, Biseswar Biswas and Rahimuddin Sarkar and another man all belonging to a place called Potazia had come to his house and had informed him that they had seen a man named Hriday Sarkar of Madla who was a relation of Sanaton's leave Potazia Hat carrying a lantern, and that shortly after they had heard from a man Rumi that he had seen a man passing along with a lantern in hand, and had then heard certain cries which had caused Rumi to suspect that foul play was taking place.

(3.) In view of the fact that Hriday had not returned to his house Sonatan sent out a search party to look for him and himself started for the Thana. Before he reached the Thana he got news that Hriday's dead body had been found floating in water. Actually the dead body was taken out of a small river or khal at a spot near Potajia On one side of the river there was a burning ghat which was referred to in the evidence as the cremation ground, and on the other side of the river there was a babla tree. On 18 June an inquest was held by the Sub- Inspector of Police, on the dead body. No marks of injury were found, but from the circumstances the persons who were summoned to take part in the inquest, and the police officer all came to the conclusion that Hriday had been murdered. The body was examined by Dr. Singh who was the Assistant Surgeon of Serajganj on, 19 June. By that time it was in such an advanced stage of decomposition that the doctor was unable to find anything either on external examination or on dissection, to show what was the cause of death. The doctor said that in his opinion death must have taken place two days prior to the post-mortem examination. That the man Hriday was murdered, there is, in out opinion, no doubt whatever. The only real question in the case is whether the prosecution had succeeded in establishing that the accused or any of them had conspired together to bring about the death of the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge for some reason or other which is not apparent, seems to have taken the view that these persons had nothing to do with the occurrence and that most or part of the relevant evidence against them had been fabricated by persons whom the learned Judge boldly described as liars .