Kanaklata: The Martyr Extraordinary

Kanaklata: The Martyr Extraordinary

Dr. BK Gohain

(Continued from yesterday)

PART-II

It is unbelievable that the girls could engage themselves successfully with P.W.6 (Bogaram Kachari) for snatching away the gun from him. P.W.1 S.l. in his ejahar nowhere says that he declared the assembly an unlawful one. He now wants to say that he had hard the crowd that it was an unlawful assembly. I could scarcely believe his present statement made some five months after the occurrence. P.W. 1 never ordered the armed force to open fire. P.W. 1 (Shome) says that being pressed by the crowd, he fell down flat on the ground. P.W. 2 A.S.I. who was by his side contradicts him and says that prosecution witness 1, SI Shome simply stepped down but at once rode straight. The girls were in the front and if P.W. 1, 4 and 5 S.I. and the constables had it they could have very easily stopped the girls and the crowd behind them from advancing towards the thana by the western approach path. I shall not enter into details about the evidence on this point as the question of justification of the firing on that day is not the point directly at issue in this case; but as evidence has been adduced on the point by the prosecution 1 should perhaps be failing in my duty if I did not touch this matter in my judgment. The mob was not violent, the crowd was peaceful. They used force technically so-called. The story of bamboo poles and an attempt at the setting of fire to the cook shed are embellishments. I have seen the poles. These may be used as posts for bamboo fencing after proper dressing but would never be used by a mob for an assault on a thana. That the crowd was not in a violent mood would be apparent from the fact that the injured constables (P.W. 4, 5 and 8) do not complain of having been assaulted by anybody in the crowd. P.W. 4 & 5 got slight injuries as they fell down and P.W. 8 got his injuries as he pressed the wooden gate with his thumbs. The embellishments had to be resorted to in self defense to justify the unhappy incident of the death of two persons. The fact of the matter is that on seeing so large a number of people assemble P.W. 1 S.I. Shome who was in-charge of the police force got nervous and completely broke down. He began to yield ground as the girls tried to advance and when he was in front of the house of P.W. 2 got up mixed up with the crowd and had a complete nervous breakdown. Constable Boga Kachari could not get any instruction from P.W. 1 and he also got nervous as the girls approached towards him and in a moment of nervousness fired two shots without perhaps aiming anybody in particular. The result was the death of two persons and grievous injuries to one boy. That P.W. 1 was suffering from nervous breakdown would be apparent also from the fact that he could not become self possessed and do his duty in taking charge of the dead bodies and of the injured boy but allowed the crowd to carry them away. I need not discuss this matter further.

As I have remarked in my memorandum of inspection, the prosecution story of an attempt to set fire to the cook shed with the help of a Jakhala is absurd; probably some from the crowd tried to come from the north as the main body was obstructed at the gate and on seeing constable Nabin (P.W. 9) they ran away. The police who always thought that they have to defend their action exaggerated it into an attempt at setting fire to the cook shed. The prosecution story in this respect is absurd and I have not believed it.

It now remains to be seen if the accused were members — or any of them was a member — of an unlawful assembly; and if so, if any of them is guilty of the offence of rioting.

Accused Jonaram Bhuiyan admits that he had been to Gohpur on the date of occurrence with the crowd but did not enter the thana compound.

Accused Hema Kanta Barua admits that he went to Gohpur in a procession with other boys and girls at the instance of a teacher and as he was proceeding by the (western) approach path, he was struck by a shot and fell down.

Except these two accused, others have denied that they were even members of the unlawful assemblies or had gone to Gohpur at the time of the occurrence.

My conclusions on the points at issue are as follows:

I therefore find accused Giridhar, Dutiram and Maghiram not guilty U/s 147 I.P.C. and acquit them accordingly U/s 258(1) Cr.P.C. I find accused Sundar Bora. Golok Pujari and Khargeswar Gogoi not guilty U/s 143 I.P.C. and acquit them U/s 245(1) Cr.P.C.

I find accused Jonaram Bhuiyan and Hema Kanta Barua guilty U/s 147 I.P.C. and convict them both accordingly. There is no allegation of any over act against them. Their guilt is only technical. However, Jonaram is a responsible man and I sentence him to undergo R.I. for a period of three months. The sentence is to run concurrently with the sentence he has been undergoing. Accused Hem Kanta is a boy of 16 years. He was compelled to join the procession by a teacher. He has suffered a lot. The bullet or shot is still embedded in his body and might be a source of great risk to his life. I therefore propose to deal with him U/s 562(1) Cr.P.C. Instead, therefore of sentencing him at once, I direct that he be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year to appear and receive sentence when called upon and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior.”

S.K. Das,

Special Magistrate, Tezpur

24.03.1943

This is factually true and the judgment was correct and praiseworthy.

(Concluded)

Top Headlines

No stories found.
Sentinel Assam
www.sentinelassam.com