MATHURAPRASAD Vs. NARENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MACNAIR , A.J.C. 1. A man named Patali Dhait was found lying dead in a railway line, the head being completely severed from the body, on 5th September 1927. The police considered the advisability of charging the non-applicants with causing his death but decided to take no action. The applicant Mathuraprasad, brother of deceased, filed a complaint against the non-applicants. This complaint after investigation was dismissed under Section 203, Criminal P.C. The Sessions Judge directed further enquiry into the case and a full inquiry was made by another Magistrate, Mr. Dewey. Mr. Dewey considered there were no sufficient grounds for committing the accused to sessions trial. The applicant applied to the Sessions Judge for revision of this order but his application was unsuccessful. He has now applied to this Court asking that further enquiry should be ordered.

(2.) IN Fattu v. Fattu [1904] 26 All. 564, Knox, J., remarked that, where an accused person had been discharged and the Sessions Judge directed a commitment, the High Court should be most unwilling to interfere. It is obvious that, where the Sessions Judge refused to take action, this Court should require even stronger grounds before deciding to interfere. The offence in this case was committed two years ago. There have been enquiries before two Magistrates and interference in this Court would be proper only if there was a strong probability that further enquiry would result in a conviction. There is no special reason for holding that the evidence of the witnesses, who have been disbelieved by the experienced Magistrate who heard them, is, in reality, convincing. It is not of great consequence that the Magistrate has laid excessive stress on contradictions which are, perhaps, not material. Satola made a statement at an early stage but this is not a strong guarantee that his statement is true. Evidence about hearing cries in the night is of a nature which renders it open to doubt. None of the witnesses appear to be above suspicion. The evidence of Col. Oxley throws great doubt upon the prosecution case. I see no reason to think that Mr. Dewey was wrong in thinking; that there was no really credible evidence to support the prosecution case: there is certainly no reason for interference by this Court. This application, is dismissed.