Back
BALTHAZAR v. GUNAWARDANA
NLR1V158
BALTHAZAR v. GUNAWARDANA.
P.C., Galle, 17,318.
Penal Code, s. 199-Intentional omission to give information of offence-Criminal
Procedure Code, s. 24-Duty of police officer-Mistake-Punishment.
Where a headman, who had received information that A had committed rape on B,
omitted to inform the nearest Police Magistrate of the same, and it appeared
that such omission was due to the belief that, as the parties were willing to
settle the matter by marriage so as to avoid the disgrace of a public exposure,
he was not bound to communicate the information,
Held, the offence of the headman was, in the circumstances, committed under a
mistake as to his duty, and that his punishment should be therefore nominal.
The facts of this case appear in the judgment of the Supreme Court. Dornhorst
and Alwis, for defendant appellant.
26th July, 1895. BONSER, C. J.
The appellant in this case has been found guilty of " omitting " to give
information he was legally bound to give " under section 199 of the Penal Code,
and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50, or in default of payment to undergo six
weeks' rigorous imprisonment. There is evidence that it is the duty of the
appellant, as a police officer, to give information to the nearest Police
Magistrate of every offence that is provided by section 24 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. The offence as to which this appellant omitted to give
information was rape. It appears that the young woman
complained to the
Mudaliyar, who is the superior of the police officer, that she had been
ravished by her cousin Janis. The Mudaliyar had the young man
arrested and sent him to the appellant to deal with the case. The parties were
evidently willing to settle the matter by the very natural method of the young
man marrying the young woman. The Mudaliyar said that he could not allow an
amicable settlement. Then they go to the house of the young woman, a sort of
conference is held, and the relations being willing to settle the matter by the
young man marrying the girl, notice of an intended marriage between the parties
is accordingly given to the Registrar on the same day. However, before the day,
Janis absconded, and thereupon these proceedings were taken against the
appellant for not reporting the information he had received to the nearest
Police Magistrate. There is no doubt that the appellant did receive information
of the alleged rape, because the evidence shows that the girl did make a
complaint to him that she had been ravished, and that the overtures for a
settlement were made in his presence. It is admitted that no report was made;
but I
