Home > Archives (2006 on) > 2012 > Criminal Heritage of Britain and 
Pre-trial Conviction under (...)

Mainstream, VOL L, No 31, July 21, 2012

Criminal Heritage of Britain and 
Pre-trial Conviction under IPC

Friday 27 July 2012, by K G Somasekharan Nair

The instrument of criminal justice—the Indian Penal Code—was drafted by Lord Macaulay when he functioned Law Minister of India from 1834 to 1838. It is a tribute to his superb draftsmanship that the Indian Penal Code is one of the least amended statutes in India.
—Nani A. Palkivala

The basic concept of justice in the foreign-made Indian Penal Code, imposed revengefully by the bandit queen Victoria on the third anni-versary of the war independence 1857, is that all Indians are habitual offenders and anybody suspected of an offence is treated a criminal alone and imprisoned indefinitely until he gets a chance to prove his innocence in a court of law at his own expense. The father of Law and Justice in modern India is Britain. Indian jurisprudents, like proselytising racketeers, are proud of it and the discourse that the present laws and judicial system were enforced by Britain for the administration of justice in India that assured people a pleasant, peaceful and prosperous life and any change on its basic structure would damn the nation. But history proves that they are lying and misleading the people malintentionally.

When Britain was in the immeasurable abyss of national debt, crimes, famine, food riots, fanaticism, malnutrition and epidemics, they conquered Bengal in 1757. The whole wealth in Britain was belonging to feudal, knightly and property-owners’ families covering 5-10 per cent of the population. Others were mendicants, wage labourers, criminals and prostitutes living on the streets. Britishers in the historic period were criminal highfliers, for the nation itself originated from criminals deported by Roman emperors.1 Democratic Britain in the 14th century was reinforcing common law originating from the absurd judgments of uncivilised feudal lords under the powers of Magna Carta. That “was a society organised not merely for war but for self-defence, in which the carrying or ownership of lethal weapons was a legal obligation rather than a controversial privilege”.2

In the 16th century, the equation of British Justice was brutal kings to execute criminal subjects. During the Elizabethan period the criminal ancestry of the nation was nourished by riotous famine and blood-sucking reformation when unlawful assemblers, pick-pockets and believers of Catholicism were executed. The “bloody code”, enforced in 1697, imposed death penalty for widespread forgery which was invoked in Bengal for hanging Raja Nandakumar in 1775 and inaugurating judicial terrorism. In Britain “violence had also become steadily more of a domestic matter; in the fourteenth century, 8 per cent of recorded homicides took place within the family. While by the seventeenth the level had risen to 20 per cent and it reached 50 per cent during the twentieth.”3

According to Horace Walpole, while Britain was conquering Bengal to inaugurate Plunder and forced baptism over India in the 18th century, thieves, robbers and highwaymen abounded in England. One was forced to travel even at noon, as if one were going to battle. Crime, smuggling, gambling, animal baiting and adultery were common. The relations between sexes were loose. Street marriage, that is consent and cohabit, was considered valid. Desertion, conjugal infidelity, bigamy and fictitious marriages celebrated by sham priests were the natural and frequent consequences of the system. Wives could be sold by auction. Religious revivalism with its accompaniments, hysteria, madness and ascetism, belief in miracles, witchcraft and theological desertion, were rampant. Anti-nomianism (faith in religion frees Christians from the obligation of moral law) was common.4
It was a general practice of Europe since the Black Death to leave neonatal babies on the street. Maintaining orphanages to foster them was a religious industry and those institutions became supply centres of child labourers to promote the industrial revolution. Those orpha-nages were hatcheries of criminals too. “Thus in 1688 there were 50 offences that could be punished by death penalty, by 1765 this has risen to 160 and 1815 to 225.”5

The English bourgeoisie, that emerged with the industrial revolution, needed to intensify the gravity of plunder and at the same time the puritans were eager to evangelise India by making laws in parliament. In order to study the situation, parliament selected adventurous goons from among them who were ready to die in sea, called Select Committee, and sent to India in 1830. They disembarked over India in 1831, distributed some questionnaires among promi-nent Indians as if they were inviting suggestions to reform their administration and judiciary in India. Raja Rammohan Roy, without appearing before them, suggested in writing: “A code of criminal law for India should be founded as far as possible on the principles which are common to, and acknowledged by all the different sects and tribes inhabiting in the country. It ought to be simple in principles, clear in its arrangement and precise in its definitions. So that it may be established as a standard of criminal justice in itself, and not stand in need of explanation by reference to any other book or authority.”6

In pursuance of the Committee’s report, Britain constituted a Law Commission to fabricate a penal code for India and both the greedy bourgoeisie and puritanic terrorists jointly selected Thomas Babington Mecaulay to materialise the rat-trap. Macaulay, not a member of any feudal family but a fake lord like Robert Clive, had two missions in India: first, to make a fatal penal code, and second, to make intellectual paraphernalia to immerse India in baptisteries. In order to execute the second one he blamed the Indian civilisation, built up on mathematics, science, technology, rural industry, astronomy and Sanskrit. Being a historian, he knew that Britain started to civilise only on the studies of those intellectualities inaugurated by Warren Hastings. He knew “tea from India, taken with milk, replaced China tea and became the basic drink for both polite men and women, in turn encouraging the import of sugar from West Indies. Gin was mixed up with quinine—rich tonic water, a drink developed to provide resistance to Malaria in India. Indian words also entered in the language, and games such as badminton and polo were introduced from India. Territorial expansion provided raw materials for British industry as well as market and employment combined with evangelicalism.”5
Macaulay, being a puritanic evangelist like his father, together with the contrivance of making an anti-Indian Penal Code, plotted to eliminate the Gentoo system of education and superimpose British system to create anti-Hindu generations for destructing Indian civilisation through them. Because “Arabs, Turks, Tartars, Moguls, who had successively overrun India, soon became Hinduised, the barbarian conquerors being, by an eternal law of history conquered themselves by the superior civilisation of their subjects. The British was the first conqueror superior and therefore inaccessible to Hindu civilisation. They destroyed it by breaking up the native communities, by uprooting the native industry and levelling all that was great and elevated in the native society. The historic pages of their rule in India report hardly anything beyond that destruction.”8

In order to complete that destruction without any resistance from natives, T.B. Macaulay, the member of a society having a majority of culprits, drafted the IPC using the standards of British criminal heritage and submitted to a Governor General in 1837. Karl Marx, who witnessed the navigation and commutation of the draft, says that the Governor General sent it to his subordinate Governors and they returned with suggestions. Thereafter it was sent from Calcutta to London seeking the connivance of Royal intriguers and parliamentary wizards and after enough surgery they returned it. By 1845 Macaulay was removed and Bethune was appointed. The new Commission submitted a revised Penal Code in 1846 and 1847. After the expiry of Bethune, two plunderers in the Council of the Governor General were appointed to revise the draft again. But the great patriotic war bursted out in 1857 and upon that sudden provocation they imposed IPC in 1860 to prevent all possibilities of its repetition. Marx, an observer of the shuttle-cocking of the IPC between various corners of the world for 23 years, says that when it was enforced all belongings of T.B. Macaulay had been lost from it. But Indian scholars praise the supermanhood of Macaulay in it. However, anti-Hindu fanatics, created by the system of education machinated by him, are still destroying India from various corners.

Instead of capital punishment for 225 offences in criminal Britain, the IPC insists for its enforcement only in rarest occasions directly. But it gives ample opportunity for the government to trap thousands of persons in any one of the plenteous non-bailable offences in it and keep them in jail without trial for an indefinite period, usually until the death of the prey. This is equivalent to capital punishment. For this purpose the First Information Report, simply an allegation, is sufficient evidence. It may be noted that jail before trial or pre-trial conviction is punishment in advance, because that period of imprisonment is deducted arithmetically from the total period of the punishment, if awarded on trial. In many cases, after undergoing torture and drenches of fodder in jails for prolonged period, so many preys are being released regularly in India declaring “no evidence” on trial. Abdul Nassar Madhani, the leader of the PDP in Kerala, was jailed by the Tamil Nadu Government in 1999 and he was acquitted after nine years declaring “no evidence”. In order to prevent crimes through the IPC, Britain constituted “Cellular Jails” all over India for creating horror in the minds of those who happened to live in it at least a day. Administering torture is the administration of justice in modern Indian jails. So every detinue is bound to suffer heavy beatings, usually to make the prey unconscious, at the moment of entering the jail. That rite is called “jail informing” or “entrance blow”. A prominent daily in Kerala reported that when M.V. Jayarajan, the well-known CPI-M leader and former MLA, was entering in Central Jail, Thiruvananthapuram on 8-11-2011 following conviction, the ADGP, Jails was present there to save him from the ritualistic entrance blow of the constitutional government.

While undergoing pre-trial conviction, the prey has to suffer a canto of savage punishment in which he is bruised by the government of the people from top to toe to force him to confess. In Palakkad district, Kerala, a person named Sambath, suspected of the Puthur murder case in 2009, had been interrogated and while answering, he died. The postmortem report revealed that there were 169 wounds on the dead body. But if the prey is ready to confess, then the democratic government is ready to make material objects, irrespective of their monetary value, to assure punishment. Thus crime No. 318/94 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, Kerala, was a bank theft case for 37 sovereign gold. The state recovered 37 sovereign from a bank employee, K.C. Prabhakaran Pillai, and 37 from another prey, in total 74 sovereign. A non-bailable offence is used by concerned government officials for generating unlawful income. In 2005, a very old man in Thiruvalla, Kerala, named Abraham Philip, was jailed without trial on an allegation, the attempt to commit murder, together with some bailable offences. After some days the non-bailable offence was deleted and he was bailed out. The yardstick of criminal justice in IPC is not at all Indian. It is provided by the English Commons of a law generated by idiotic feudal lords in the Dark Age and “two witness rule is prevailing at common law”.9

But when the barbarous common law, yielding to endless references and misinter-pretations was applied in India, it came to the conclusion that no human witness is necessary but circumstantial evidence is sufficient to terminate any number of persons. It was principled on an inimical imagination: men may lie but circumstances may not. However, that theory is evolved in a miniscular mind which cannot assimilate that man is the master of circumstances and an intelligent man can manipulate any circumstance according to his determination. This is what distinguishes man from animal.

The independence of India from imperialism, the highest form of capitalism, was a real revolution. Like the French revolution liberated France from feudalism, India at the moment of independence had to bury British feudal laws, precedents and practices together with the repressive machinery of native bureaucrats which maintained the colonial rule. That did not happen. Because like Britishers, rulers in independent India believed that all Indians, except them, are criminals. For that reason the IPC remains the least amended statute in India. 

1. Anthony Bireley—The People of Romain Britain.
2. Nicholas Vincent—Britain, the Birth of the Nation.
3. Ronald Hutton—Britain, the Tudor and Stuart Dynasties.
4. W.E.H. Leeky—A History England in the Eighteenth Century.
5. William Gibson—Britain, the making of the nation.
6. Selected works of Raja Rammohan Roy—Publication division, Government of India.
7. Jerremy Black—Britain, a Nation transformed.
8. Karl Marx—The Future results of British rule in India.
9. John Guy—Tudor England.
Notice: The print edition of Mainstream Weekly is now discontinued & only an online edition is appearing. No subscriptions are being accepted