Jadunandan Singh v Emperor 1941

हिंदी में पढ़ने के लिए यहां क्लिक करें

Case Summary

Full Case Details

Narain Dusadh and Sheonadan Singh, the gorait and gomasta respecvely of a landlord, were returning aer the inspecon of some fields when the two peoners and others came out of an ahar and assaulted them. The peoner Alakh gave bhala blow to Narain on the right leg, and then other people assaulted him with lathis. The peoner Jadunandan and others then assaulted Sheonandan. Jadunandan aer this forcibly took the thumb impressions of Narain on one piece of blank paper, and of Sheonandan on three blank papers. On these findings the two peoners and two others were convicted by the trying Magistrate, Jadunandan being sentenced under Secon 384, Penal Code, to six months rigorous imprisonment and Alakh to four months rigorous imprisonment under Secon 324. Jadunandan was also found guilty under Secon 323 but the Magistrate did not consider it necessary to pass any separate sentence on him under that secon. Two other men were also convicted by the Magistrate under Secon 323 and fined. An appeal which was heard by the Addional Sessions Judge of Gaya failed. When the maer came to this Court, Verma J., rejected the revisional applicaon of Jadunandan Singh and also, so far as the queson of sentence was concerned, that of Alakh. It has been contended on behalf of Jadunandan Singh that no offence under Secon 384 has been brought home to him. This contenon is rested on the definition of ‘extortion’ in Section 383.

It is clear that this definion makes it necessary for the prosecuon to prove that the vicms Narain and Sheonandan were put in fear of injury to themselves or to others, and further, were thereby dishonestly induced to deliver paper containing their thumb impressions. The prosecuon story in the present case goes on further than that thumb impressions were “forcibly taken” from them. The details of the forcible taking were apparently not put in evidence. The trial Court speaks of the wrists of the vicms being caught and of their thumb impressions being then ‘taken.’ Cases frequently occur which turn on the difference between the giving and the taking of thumb impressions. In criminal Revn. No. 125 of 19311 heard by Sir Courtney-Terrell C. J., and myself on 15th April 1931, the vicm was ed up on refusing to give his thumb impression on a piece of paper. He then consented to put his thumb impression on that piece of paper, and it was by that fear he was found to have been induced to put his thumb impression on the paper. The convicon under Secon 384 was therefore upheld. This was contrasted with the case which had come before me sing singly in 1930, Criminal Revn. No. 420 of 1930, 2 decided on 15th August 1930, where the finding of fact that, helped by two others, the peoner took by force the thumb impressions of the vicm-the man was thrown on the ground, his le hand pulled out and the thumb put into a kajrauta and then impression of that thumb taken on certain papers. I had held that in the circumstances there was no inducing the vicm to deliver the pieces of paper with his thumb impressions. As to this, the late Chief Jusce observed:

If the facts had been that the complainant’s thumb had been forcible seized by one of the peoners and had been applied to the piece of paper notwithstanding his struggles and protests, then I would agree that there is good ground for saying that the offence commied, whatever it may be, was not the offence of extoron because the complainant would not have been induced by the fear of injury but would have simply been the subject of actual physical compulsion, and I venture to agree with the reasoning of my learned brother Dhavle in Cri. Rev. No. 420 of 1930.

The Assistant Government Advocate has drawn aenon to 13 PLT 5883 where the peoners were convicted under Secon 347. It is said in one part of the report that the vicm was laid down on the floor and gagged and only allowed to go aer his thumb impressions were taken on several pieces of paper. Macpherson, J. upheld the convicon, aer poinng out however that it had been found as a fact that the peoners intenonally put the vicm in fear of injury to himself and thereby dishonestly induced him to place his thumb impression upon certain pieces of paper. There is no such finding in the present case. The lower Courts only speak of the forcible taking of the victim’s thumb impressions: and as this does not necessarily involve inducing the vicm to deliver papers with his thumb impressions (papers which could no doubt be converted into valuable securies), I must hold that the offence of extoron is not established. The learned advocate suggested that in that event this may be a case of robbery, but it has not been asserted or found that the papers were taken from the victim’s possession. It seems to me that on the findings the offence is no more than the use of criminal force or an assault punishable under Secon 352, Penal Code.

Jadunandan Singh was also convicted under Secon 323, but no separate sentence was passed upon him under that secon. I do not propose to interfere with that part of the order of the lower Court, and as regards his convicon under Secon 384, Penal Code, which must be replaced by a convicon under Secon 352, Penal Code, I sentence him to rigorous imprisonment in default. As regards the peoner Alakh it had been urged that he is a student. From the record it appears that his age is 22, and though record does not show that he is a student, an aempt has been made before me quite recently by means of an affidavit and a cerficate to show that he is a student. I am not sure that this is any migaon of the offence of causing hurt with a bhala, but having regard to the nature of the injury that he caused, it seems to me that the ends of jusce will be served if the sentence passed upon him under Secon 324, Penal Code, is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months.