Kolkata Hit-And-Run Case: HC Raps Trial Court For Discharging Ex-MLA [Read Judgment]

The Calcutta High Court last week ordered trial of former RJD MLA Mohd. Sohrab for allegedly shielding his son Sambia who has been accused of killing an IAF corporal in a hit-and-run case last year during the Republic Day parade rehearsal.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi also directed framing of charges under Section 212 (harboring an offender) of the Indian Penal Code against Sambia’s friends, Shanu and Johny, for harboring Sambia. The Court also directed the trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude it “at an early date”, in view of the fact that the main accused has been in custody.

On a test drive in his brand new Audi, the former MLAs son had entered the parade ground on Red Road Fort William, the Army’s Eastern Command Headquarters after jumping at least two traffic barricades and had run over Gaud, a Gujarat-based Air Force Drill Instructor. Sambia was then arrested by the Kolkata police a few days after the incident.

The Court was now hearing an Appeal filed by the State against an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge in May this year, discharging Sambia’s father and his friends.

While the High Court agreed with the trial Court on the absence of material to support charges under Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of the Indian Penal Code, it held that there existed “strong suspicion” against Mr. Sohrab for commission of offence under Section 212.

The Court further opined that the definition of the word ‘harbour’ would include a co-accused as well, observing, “I have given my anxious consideration to such submission but I am unable to persuade myself that the wide definition of the word ‘harbour’ as defined in Section 52A of the Indian Penal Code would exclude a co-accused who knowingly assists another accused to abscond from legal punishment. The sole exception in that regard is a spouse and no one else. Moreover, in the light of the clear and expansive definition of the word ‘harbour’ in the Code, I am of the opinion that reference to various lexicographic authorities is of little relevance.”

It, thereafter, held that a prima facie case was also disclosed against Sambia’s friends for commission of offence punishable under Section 212.

Besides, the Court expressed concern over the failure of the Trial Court in recording reasons for discharging the accused, observing, “It must be borne in mind that unmerited discharge of accused persons bereft of rational foundation cause undue dilation in trial and consequential prejudice not only to the victim but also to other accused persons who are facing custody trial, as in the present case.”

It went on to clarify that the discharge of Mr. Sohrab from charges under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code shall not discourage the trial Court from reframing the charge at a subsequent stage if cogent evidence is brought on record.