JATINDRA NATH SAHU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us was charged of offences under Secs.193 and 218,1.P.C. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty of the alleged offence under Section 218 but found the appellant unanimously guilty under Section 193, I.P.C. The Judge accepted the verdict and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. The subject matter of the charge is entry No. 43 in the general diary of the police station of 2nd November 1935. That entry was made on that date at 9-30 p. m. in the night. The case of the prosecution is that one Gouri Chakravarti was found missing on the evening of 1 November 1935. On the next morning his brother Charu went in search of Gouri but could only find his shoes and chadar in Gouri's arat. He waited for sometime for the return of his brother but in vain. Inquiries were made toy Charu from the neighbours but no trace of him could be found. He thereafter went to the thana and reported to the appellant who was in charge of the police station at the time that his brother was missing. The accused noted the said information in a loose sheet of paper, as also the description of Gouri Chakravarti which his brother Charu gave him. Later on, Charu again went to the thana at about 5 p. m. on the same day and the evidence is that Charu told the appellant that blood marks on some rags and on the loose earth near Indra Dutt's arat had been found and requested the accused to come and see the blood marks personally. The accused did not make any note at that time but verbally asked Charu to go and search for the dead body. Later on in the evening one Nani Gopal Chakravarty who had seen the blood marks outside Indra Dutt's arat also went to the thana and reported to the appellant, who was in charge of the thana at that time, that he had seen the blood marks, near Indra Dutt's arat and finally at about 9 p. m. Purna Chakravarti and others went to the arat of one Ajoy Gopal Dutt and took Ajoy to the thana and told the appellant that they had discovered blood marks near the said arat of Indra Dutt, At 9-30 p. m. the accused made the entry in question, namely, entry No. 43, in the general diary. He stated therein that it had been reported to him that Gouri Chakravarti had been missing but he did not record in that entry the fact that it had been reported to him later in the day that blood marks had been found near about the place of Indra Dutt.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused intentionally omitted to note in the general diary the fact that it was reported to him that blood marks had been found near about the arat of Indra Dutt. We need not deal with the charge against the appellant under Section 218 in detail. The learned Sessions Judge in the course of delivering his charge to the jury in respect of the offence charged under that section pointed out the fact that the first information about the murder was lodged at the thana on the next day at noon, that is to say, on 3 November at noon, and he also said that up to that time there was absolutely no necessity for the accused to change the general diary. In course of his charge to the jury when dealing with the alleged offence under Section 218, he also directed the jury to the following effect: If therefore you find that the preparation of the incorrect record by the accused, was due to a mere accidental blunder on his part, then you may presume that the accused had not the intention or knowledge which is essential element of the charge under Section 218, I.P.C. If you think that the accused as a result of carelessness or gross negligence forgot to mention some material facts in the General Diary entry, that act or illegal omission cannot be deemed to be with the knowledge or intention as required in Section 218, I.P.C., and the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

(3.) After the charge to the jury on the alleged offence under Section 218 the learned Sessions Judge took up the case against the appellant under Section 193,1. P.C. He said as follows: In order to bring home to the accused the charge under Section 193, I.P.C., the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, (1) that the accused made a false entry or illegally omitted to make any entry, (2) that he did so intentionally, (3) that he did so intending that the false entry should appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding or in any other proceeding, (4) that the person conducting the judicial or other proceeding had to form an opinion upon the evidence in which such false evidence appeared, (5) that the accused intended that person to entertain an erroneous opinion upon the evidence, (6) that such erroneous opinion touched a point material to the result of such proceeding.