S.K.DAS - (1.) This is an unfortunate case in which a complaint filed in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Bombay on 31-10-1956, by one Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar, respondent herein, has to be finally disposed of in the year 1960 in circumstances which we shall state at once. On 3-6-1956, in the evening, a public meeting was held at a place called Chowpatty in Bombay which was to be addressed by the Prime Minister of India. The meeting was called in connection with an agitation which was then going on for the reorganisation of the State of Bombay. There was considerable disturbance at the meeting as a result whereof it had to be dispersed, and large crowds of people began to wander about in various localities around Chowpatty including an area round charni Road Station. The case of the complaining respondent was that at about 8 p.m., his younger brother Sitaram was crossing Queen's Road near a building called Laud Mansion. At that time there was a large crowd on the road and members of that crowd were stopping vehicles passing by that road. One taxi cab which had come from the direction of the Opera House and was going towards Churchgate was already stopped. Sitaram was then accompanied by Sashikant Kamtekar and Nand Kumar Vagal. When these three had crossed the road, they heard the reports of revolver shots and on looking back they found that a person called Bhayya was injured by one of the shots and fell down on the footpath. Sitaram and his friends went to help Bhayya; at this stage, another shot was fired by one of the occupants of a blue car which was near the taxi cab referred to earlier, Sitaram was hit on his chest, and the bullet having entered the chest cavity injured the right ventricle of the heart. Sitaram was removed to the G. T. Hospital but died before medical assistance could be given. Dr. H. S. Mehta, Police Surgeon, who made a post-mortem examination of the dead body opined that Sitaram died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the gun shot wound he had received. The doctor further said that the charring round the wound indicated that the shot had been fired from a distance of 2 to 18 inches only.
(2.) THE case of the respondent was that Vadilal Panchal, appellant before us, fired the shot from the blue car. THE occupants of the car were K. K. Shah, advocate, his son Vinay, and one Ratilal Sanghvi on the back seat, and the appellant and chauffeur Mohiuddin on the front seat. K. K. Shah was mentioned in the complaint as one of the complainant's witnesses. He was examined and said that after the meeting was over, he and his companions were returning in his car to his house. Because of the trouble, the car travelled by a longer route and when it reached Queen's Road, there were large crowds on that road who were pelting stones, shouting slogans and committing other acts of violence: a public bus was burnt, and a taxi cab which was proceeding ahead of K. K. Shah's car was stopped. Some three or four hundred people surrounded his car, pelted stones and shouted "maro, maro". Some of them attempted to drag out Ratilal Sanghvi who occupied a corner seat; some caught hold of the appellant by his neck and hair and wanted to drag him out of the car. THE appellant then opened fire with his revolver. THE rioters then held back, and the way was clear for the car to pass. THE car then drove away and after some time K. K. Shah and the appellant went to Gamdevi Police Station where the latter made a report of what had happened. THE appellant was sent to Nair Hospital where he was medically treated and allowed to go. The Coroner of Bombay held an inquest into the death of Sitaram at which K. K. Shah, Sashikant Kamtekar and several other witnesses were examined. The Coroner's Jury returned a verdict that Sitaram died of the gunshot wound caused by a bullet fired by the appellant "under such circumstances as would render the firing to be in the exercise of the right of private defence and as such justified". This verdict was returned on 16-10-1956. Sometime earlier, on 3-7-1956, to be precise, the complaining respondent had made an enquiry through his advocate from the Commissioner of Police, Bombay as to whether the appellant had been arrested: the reply received was that the enquiries made by the police did not reveal any offence having been committed by the appellant and the police proposed to take no action.
(3.) ON 31-10-1956, the respondent filed his complaint. The learned Presidency Magistrate to whom the complaint was made referred it to the Superintendent of Police, C. I. D., for enquiry and report. Presumably, he acted under S. 202, Cr. P. C. ON 15-11-1956, the Superintendent of Police submitted the report of his Inspector in which it was stated: From the exhaustive enquiries made immediately after the incident it was disclosed that Shri Vadilal Panchal was justified in resorting to firearms in self-defence of himself and other occupants of the motor car. ON 17-1-1957, the learned Magistrate gave the respondents another opportunity to examine his witnesses before the enquiring officer, because by reason of a revision application made to the High Court earlier against the order referring the case to the police for enquiry, the respondent did not produce his witnesses before the enquiring officer. The enquiring officer then examined all the witnesses and submitted his report on 12-3-1957. This time also the enquiring officer said: From their statements and other evidence on record, it is clear that Shri Wadilal Panchal opened fire in the exercise of his right of private defence, which verdict the learned Coroner's Jury also brought after a protracted hearing of the Inquest Proceedings. Copies of all statements recorded by me, are attached for reference." ON 30-4-1957, the learned Presidency Magistrate considered the report of the enquiring officer in great detail with reference to the statements of all the witnesses and said: "The Police have recorded in detail the statements of all witnesses produced by the complainant as well as of all the occupants of the car. There is therefore, material on record showing fully whether the circumstances existed making out the right of private defence available to the accused. The fact whether the case falls within one of exceptions or not can be established on the evidence of the witnesses produced by the prosecution itself though of course the burden of proof lies on the accused. From the statements, recorded by the Police in this case and from the surrounding circumstances of the case, I have come to the definite conclusion that the report of the police stating that the shot was fired by the accused in self defence is true. As I have stated the statement of the police surgeon conclusively supports the conclusion. I have come to the conclusion that the statements of the four eye witnesses brought by the complainant are false. These eye witnesses are not credible witnesses. It will be harassment to the accused and waste of public time if any process is issued in this case." Accordingly, he dismissed the complaint under S. 203, Cr. P. C.;