- (1.) THIS is one of those cases in which a verdict would shock the conscience of the public. A child aged 2 fell down from an apartment on the 4th floor or a building situated on Netaji Subash Road. The tragedy occurred on the 14th of October, 1961, at about 10-30 a. m. When the father had gone to his office, the maid was in the bathroom and the mother was reading a news-paper in the drawing room. Presumably, the child crawled to the balcony, got on a chair, and lost her balance. On hearing the noise, the mother looked out only to find that the child was lying motionless on the payment below. In these circumstances we are unable to appreciate how and on what basis the Coroners' Jury came to the conclusion that the mother must be held guilty of negligence. To permit the seeds of a prosecution to be sown on these facts, seems to us to be a perversion of justice, and if we have the power, we must grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner. The verdict of the Coroner's jury seems to us to be based on no evidence at all, and it would be unfair to the mother, to permit that verdict to stand.
(2.) THE learned Assistant Government Pleader who appears on behalf of the State, contends that a Coroner's Court is not one of those Courts which are established in the heirarchy of Courts under the Criminal Procedure Code, and he argues that we have no jurisdiction to quash the verdict returned by the jurors of the Coroner's Court. On the other hand, Mr. Mengade who appears on behalf of the petitioner, contends that this Court has got jurisdiction to control the deliberations before the Coroner and in proper cases this Court must exercise its jurisdiction either to amend or quash the verdict or the inquisition.
(3.) TURNING to the provisions of the Coroner's Act, 1871, section 29 provides that: "no inquisition found upon or by any inquest shall be quashed for any technical defect. In any case of technical defect a Judge of the High Court may, if he thinks fit order the inquisition to be amended, and the same shall forthwith be amended accordingly. " On a plain reading of this section it would appear that the circumstances in which the High Court can quash the verdict or the inquisition, have not been clearly or fully set out in the section. What is provided is that an inquisition cannot be quashed for a techinical defect. The provision that an inquisition cannot be quashed for a mere technical defect must, however, carry with it the implication that the High Court has the power to quash an inquisition, but the intention of the Legislature was that the power possessed by the High Court to quash an inquisition should only be exercised in cases in which the inquisition suffers from a substantial as distinguished from a technical defect. If the verdict of the Coroner's Jury is assailed on a technical plea, the second part of section 29 of the Coroner's Act, provides that rather than quash a verdict, the High Court may amend the verdict so as to cure the inquisition of all technical infirmities. In a word, therefore, the first part of section 29 implies that the High Court has the power to quash an inquisition, the power being circumscribed so as to be exercised to cure substantial defects and the second part of the Section confers on the High Court the power to amend an inquisition so as to remove the technical defects from which the inquisition suffers.;