Bharat Dube vs Emperor

Agarwala, J.—This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Patna u/s 307, Criminal P.C., in a case in which the learned Judge has differed from the verdict of the jury on charges of attempted murder and attempted suicide. The occurrence which gave rise to the prosecution took place in the Secretariat building in Patna. It appears that on the first floor of this building there is the block of offices occupied by the Criminal Investigation Department. The easternmost office of this block is occupied by the Crimea Assistant to the Deputy Inspector General of the Investigation Department and on the day with which we are concerned the Crimes Assistant was Mr. M.K. Sinha who was in his office. The room next to this on its west is occupied by a lady typist and on the west of the typist''s room is the office of the Deputy Inspector General of the Investigation Department. We are concerned with the room on the west of the Deputy Inspector General''s office. This room is the office of the Deputy Superintendent of the Criminal Investigation Department and on the day and at the time with which we are concerned, Mr. Akhauri Eaghunath Sahai, Deputy Superintendent, was in this office. Next to it on the west is the Inspector General''s office and next to the latter''s office is another Deputy Superintendent''s office and next to this is the clerks'' office.

On the north of this block there runs a corridor and on the south of it a verandah. At the western extremity of this verandah is the office of the Police Co-operative Bank. The door of the bank''s office commands a view of the entire length of the verandah and at the material time a clerk of the Bank, Mathura Prasad, was in the office. In the corridor which runs along the north side of the block of offices of the Criminal Investigation Department and opposite the door of the room occupied by Mr. Akhauri Eaghunath Sahai a sentry armed with a rifle with fixed bayonet was on duty at the time and on the day with which we are concerned which was 9th August 1939. This sentry was constable Balram Singh. Mr. Akhauri Eaghunath Sahai went to his office about 11-30 in the morning on the day in question. While he was sitting at his table working at his files he was struck on the neck. He says that he looked round and recognized as his assailant the constable Bharat Dube. Mr. Sahai fell between his chair and his table as a result of this blow and his assailant then dealt five more blows on the neck. Mr. Sahai raised an out-cry and his assailant disappeared through the south door of the office, that is to say, the door leading on to the verandah which runs the whole length of the south side of the Criminal Investigation Department block. Hearing Mr. Sahai''s out-cry the sentry who bad been outside the northern door of the office entered. He says that he noticed the accused running through the south door and saw Mr. Sahai lying on the floor and bleeding. The commotion was heard by Mr. M.K. Sinha, the Crimes Assistant who was in his room two rooms from the place of the occurrence. With him was another officer Mr. A.K.P. Sinba who was having a consultation with him.

These two officers at first went on to the verandah through a door on the south of Mr. M.K. Sinha''s office but seeing nothing there they went back to Mr. M.K. Sinha''s office and at the door they met Mr. Akhauri Raghunath Sahai who they saw was wounded. They went back with him to his own room and they rendered first aid to him and sent him off to the hospital. Mr. A.K.P. Sinha (P.W. 7) who was the officer who had been in Mr. M.K. Sinna''s room and who had come to the room of the Deputy Superintendent with the others went out on the verandah and found the accused lying there on his back. The buttons of the coat of the accused were open, his underwear below the coat was pulled up and his abdomen was exposed.

Mr. A.K.P. Sinha noticed a wound in the abdomen and saw in the pocket of the accused the sheath of a sword-stick, Near the accused was found a blood-stained sword-stick. The accused was also sent to the hospital. At the hospital Mr. Akhauri Raghunath Sahai was found to be in a precarious condition and his statement was recorded.

In that he said that while be was sitting in his office at about 12-80 he suddenly felt someone hit him from behind on the neck. Looking round he saw constable Bharat. Dube fleeing. After that he fell down and shouted and people came to his assistance. 6.The motive for the assault given by Mr. sahai in this statement was that he had had to punish Bharat Dube for dereliction of duty and a part of the punishment included an order of transfer to the Hazaribagh district. From the evidence in the case it has transpired that Bharat Dube was anxious not to be transferred to Hazaribagh and made attempts to have the decision to send him there reconsidered. These attempts failed and on the 8th, the day previous to the occurrence, he had been definitely informed that he would have to go to Hazaribagh. The defence of the accused was and is that he noticed a stranger entering the room of Mr. Akhauri Raghunath Sahai and that he followed the stranger into the room to see what he was going to do there. When he entered the room he noticed the stranger assault Mr. Sahai and run through the door leading to the verandah. He gave chase and was himself assaulted by the stranger on the verandah.

may be observed that the only method of exit from the C.I.D. block for the stranger who had come on to the verandah from the room in question was through the Inspector General''s office which is immediately west of that room. If that office were unoccupied and the doors open a person on the verandah could have escaped through it. There is no evidence in this case as to whether that room was in fact occupied or what the condition of the door was but the matter is not material as I shall show presently.

The material evidence against the accused person is that the constable Balram Singh saw him enter Mr. Sahai''s room. Mr. Sahai saw the accused fleeing from that room and between these two points of time Mr. Sahai was stabbed in the neck six times. No one saw anybody else either entering or leaving the room. The accused was found outside the door of the room and by his side was a blood-stained sword-stick and in his own pocket was a sheath into which this sword-stick fitted. The condition of his clothes negatives his statement that he was attacked by a stranger. A stranger would not have undone the buttons of his coat and pulled up his underwear in order to stab him in the abdomen. The fact that the clothes were found in this condition suggests, on the other hand, that the accused himself undid the buttons of his coat and pulled up his own underwear before stabbing himself with the sword-stick

It is not necessary, in my Opinion, in these circumstances to consider the possibility of any stranger having assaulted Mr. Sahai as stated by the accused. The circumstances negative the presence of any such stranger and the direct evidence of persons who were in a position to see who entered and left that room leaves no loophole for the suggestion that any stranger was about the place at that time. The evidence, in my view, is conclusive as to the guilt of the accused and the verdict of the jury cannot be accepted. The medical evidence in the case is that one of the injuries to Mr. Sahai went down to the spinal cord but the other injuries were simple. Mr. Sahai was detained in the hospital under treatment for 15 days and then he was removed to his own house where he was convalescing for sometime and as he says was in great pain.

On the medical evidence it has been contended that an attempt to murder within the meaning of Section 307, Penal Code, has not been established. In order that an act shall amount to an attempt to murder all that it is necessary to prove is that if the act had caused death it would have amounted to murder provided that it was done with such intention or knowledge as would be necessary to be proved in the case of murder. The fact that an not results in minor injuries or even in no injuries at all is not relevant for the purpose of deciding whether it amounted to an attempt to murder or not.

The illustrations to the section are themselves quite clear that the section provides different punishment for cases where the act results in hurt being caused and where no such result follows. Illustration (d) to the section is as follows : A, intending to murder Z, by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A''s keeping; A has not yet committed the offence in this section. A places the food on Z''a table or delivers it to Z''s servants to place it on Z''s table. As soon as A has done this he has committed the offence under the section.

Now, it is to be noticed that A''s criminality does not depend on the servant''s carrying out his orders but merely on his giving a direction to the servant to place the food on z''s table. The section itself provides a punishment of ten years for doing an act which amounts to an attempt to murder even though the act causes no hurt to any one; but if hurt is caused the offender is liable to the heavier punishment of transportation for life.

Reference was made to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Matru Vithoba v. Emperor (13) 15 Bom. L.R. 991 The facts of that oase were that the accused struck his wife on the neck with an axe causing a simple hurt. It was held that this was not an attempt to murder and the learned Judges observed that a blow with a hatchet is not an act ordinarily capable of causing death in the natural or ordinary course of events. With great respect I am unable to appreciate the force of that observation. Whether a blow with a hatchet is or is not capable of causing death in the natural or ordinary course of events will depend on a number of circumstances e.g., the strength of the blow and the persistence of the attack. Where a number of blows are struck at the neck of a person not in a position to defend himself it seems to me that if the attack was successful it would be impossible to take any other view than that the act amounted to murder and that when death does not result from such an attack it is clearly an attempt to murder within the meaning of Section 307.

In my opinion the offence committed by the accused amounts to such an attempt and I would therefore accept the reference and convict the accused of the offence u/s 307, Penal Code. I am also satisfied that the injury inflicted on the accused was inflicted by himself in an attempt to commit suicide. I would therefore hold that he has also committed an offence u/s 309, Penal Code.

There remains the question of sentences appropriate to these offences. It is in evidence that the accused enlisted in the police force in December 1929. He has borne an exemplary character during the whole term of his service in the force and on many occasions he has received special rewards, including one for rescuing a woman who was drowning in the Ganges.

The result of the present conviction will inevitably be that he will lose the benefit of this long and meritorious service and the rewards of that service. The crime appears to have been committed at a time when the accused was labouring under great mental strain as a result of the punishment which had been inflicted on him. Taking into consideration these facts and the fact that the accused has already been in detention for a year I consider that the justice of the case will be met by sentencing him u/s 307 to one year''s rigorous imprisonment. No separate sentence will be passed in respect of the conviction u/s 309.

Shearer J.

I agree.