Hem Chandra Singh and Others vs Emperor

Ross, J.—The three petitioners are Hem Chandra Singh, a Head Constable, and Rambrich Singh and Raghubans Panley, constables. They were tried along with two other persona, Abdul Halim, a dafadar and one Darogi Lal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bhagalpur on a charge u/s 384 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and all five persons were convicted and sentenced to three months'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 each. On appeal Abdul Halim and Darogi Lal were acquitted and the sentences on the two constables were reduced to two months, the fines imposed upon them being remitted. The appeal of the Head Constable was dismissed.

The charge against the petitioners was that.

between the 9th and the 12th of August 1925, at Ajarpur, and then at Loualagan, and last at Bihpur, with the common object of making illegal gain in the course of the same transaction, (they) attempted to commit extortion by putting Ramdhan Mandal and his two brothers Dilo and Triloki (in fear) by actually beating and threatening them at Ajarpur and thereby dishonestly obtained pro-note of Rs. 201-8-0 from Ramdhan Mandal, Dilo and Triloki jointly in favour of Sheikh Akbar Ali at Loualagan, and also attempted to commit extortion by obtaining sudbharna of 4 bighas of land under three sudbharna bonds of Rs. 201-8-0 from Ramdhan Mandal, Dilo and Triloki in favour of Sheikh Akbar Ali at Bihpur by obtaining thumb impression from them, one on each bond respectively and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 384/511 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case for the prosecution briefly was that on the 9th of August Ramdhan and his two brothers were called by the Head Constable who told them to point out the bad characters of the locality. They said they could not do so and were beaten by the constables under the orders of the jamadar. As to what happened after this, there is some conflict in the evidence; but apparently they were ordered to pay Rs. 300 to get their names taken of the register of bad characters. The demand was subsequently reduced to Rs. 200. They said they had no money, whereupon Darogi Lal and Abdul Halim arranged for a creditor at Loualagan and reported this to the Head Constable who returned with his constables to the outpost of Choisa and took no direct part in what followed. The brothers then went with Darogi Lal and Abdul Dafadar to Loualagan where a hand note was executed in favour of Sheikh Akbar Ali for Rs. 201-8-0, Rs. 1-8-0 being the fee of the scribe. They were accompanied by one Baldeo Singh. After the execution of the hand-note, the brothers went to Bihpur on the 10th of August and on the 11th of August purchased stamps for three documents which were executed on the 11th and taken for registration on the 12th. They were accompanied by Abdul Halim, Darogi Lal and Anugrah, chowkidar, who was to identify them. They produced the hand-note before the Sub-Registrar and told him the story and registration was refused. The defence was that the case was false and was got up by Baldeo Singh.

The first contention on behalf of the petitioners was that, inasmuch as the alleged offence falls within the terms of Section 385 of the Code, the charge u/s 384 read with Section 511 is bad, because Section 511 is only applicable where no express provision is made by the Code for the punishment of an attempt. In my opinion, this argument is not sound. Section 385 does not expressly provide for the punishment of an attempt at extortion; and the limitation in Section 511 evidently relates to such offences as an attempt to commit murder or an attempt to commit suicide or an attempt to obtain illegal gratification which are expressly punishable by other sections of the code.

The second contention is that the charge as framed is not only embarrassing but has no relation to the facts. It is argued that the evidence shows that the complainant was beaten because he refused to disclose the names of bad characters and that the subsequent act of the Head Constable, with which the constables were not concerned, was a demand for money in order to remove the names of the brothers from the register of bad characters; and that, although this may amount to an offence u/s 161, it does not amount to an attempt to commit extortion; and that the petitioners took mo direct part in the events that happened at Loualagan and Bihpur as was found by the learned Sessions Judge.

It Is contended, on the other hand, on behalf of the Crown that the whole transaction was continuous; that the complainant was reduced to a state of helplessness by being beaten and in these circumstances the demand for money was made; that there is evidence to connect the constables also with the extortion; and that, even if the offence of the Head Constable falls u/s 161, on the facts found it falls u/s 384 read with Section 511 also. (The judgment then discussed the evidence and holding that the conviction of the accused was bad acquitted them).