Gopal Singh vs Raghunath Singh and Others

Rowland, J.—This is an application by the complainant who had brought a case against the opposite party by laying a first information report on 12th March 1933 alleging that Raghunath and others had damaged his crops by grazing a large number of cattle on them and had burnt his hut and looted some grains in it. These allegations were investigated by the police who examined some witnesses produced by the petitioner. The petitioner finding that the police did not seem favourably impressed with his case, petitioned the Sub-divisional Officer on 31st March 1933 for an opportunity to prove his case before the Magistrate.

The investigation remained pending with the police until 8th April 1933. when a final report "false" was submitted with a complaint for the prosecution of the petitioner u/s 211. This was put up before the Sub-divisional Officer with the petitioner''s application of 31st March on 10th April.

Treating that application as a complaint the Magistrate examined the petitioner on solemn affirmation and then dismissed his complaint. He observed with reference to the petitioner s prayer to be allowed to prove his case before the Magistrate that complainant may prove his case at the trial, that is to say, at the trial in which the petitioner was to be an accused u/s 211. The Sessions Judge was moved to order further inquiry and by his order dated 17th May 1933, he refused to do so on the ground that there was no flaw or irregularity in the procedure of the learned Magistrate.

The Sessions Judge did not consider the question whether it was desirable in fact and on the merits of this particular case that the truth or falsity of the allegations of the complainant should be determined by a Magistrate after hearing evidence, rather, than that the decision should be governed entirely by opinions expressed by police officers. This was a matter to which it was desirable that the Sessions Judge should give consideration. It is certainly not desirable that in all cases the opinion of a police officer should be accepted as the last word on question of fact. The decision of such questions has been entrusted by law to the Magistracy and the Magistrates should not abdicate their functions in this respect entirely in favour of the police.

In the present case there is an unfortunate history of previous dispute and litigation between the petitioner and various other persons a history which might serve as a motive either for members of the party of the accused to do mischief to property of the complainant or on the other hand for the complainant to implicate members of the accused party who had not taken part in an occurrence; to add to and exaggerate the number of accused persons in the event of an occurrence taking place; and to multiply and exaggerate the damage in the event of mischief having been committed. It appears that when the Sub-Inspector went to the place he found a hut burnt and he found some signs of damage to crops.

The damage to crops was much less extensive than would have been expected had the number of cattle been so large as alleged by the complainant. The ashes at the hut did not indicate that along with the hut grain had been burnt as was the case of the complainant. The damage to crops and the burning of the hut could have been the work of a much smaller number of men than the complainant had named as accused persona and the police officers examined defence witnesses who made statements supporting alibi for a number of the persons accused.

Most of these matters while they are indications of perhaps gross exaggerations are not conclusive as to the entire case being false and I think this was an instance where the most suitable course for the Sub-divisional Officer to have taken was to summon certain of the principal accused named by the petitioner in his complaint and to determine on sworn evidence the main issues of fact. Accordingly I allow the application and direct further inquiry.