063-NLR-NLR-V-05-BANDA-KORALA-v.-PINHAMY.pdf
( 223 )
BANDA KORALA v. PINHAMY.P. C., Puttalam, 6,723.
Penal Code, e. 486—Criminal intimidation—Practice of huniam or sorcery.
The performance of huniam ceremonies, with the intention of puttingpersons in fear, of their personal safety and so preventing them fromentering a field and reaping a crop, is criminal intimidation.
T
HE accused were convicted in this case of criminal intimi– dation by an act which they believed to be a threat to cause
death, and which they knew would be so regarded, being anoffence under section 486 of the Penal Code. The Police Magis-trate, Mr. H. W. Brodhurst, found that while the complainant was inpossession of a field' w'hich he had cultivated and sown with paddy,the accused intending to prevent him from reaping his crop placedin the field a " huniam-bola, ” or charm, which is commonly believed’by the villagers to cause death to any person entering the field:and that in consequence of this act of the' accused, the crop had to beabandoned for want of persons to reap it.
It was proved that the “huniam-bola ” was like a ladder withthree steps, which was placed on the field, and that the fourthaccused wearing a red cloth performed a ceremony over it bybringing a king coeoanut, with three images and complainant’sname drawn on it, and burying it near the “ bola he also killeda white cock and sprinkled its blood on the leafy framework ofthe “bola.” The first and second accused stood by as guards, andthe third put some resin powder over the coeoanut. The firstaccused intoned some words, and with the second accused kneltdown and prayed that complainant should die within nine days.On one of the witnesses, who watched this ceremony from behinda bush, asking the accused why they had done'this, he'was told,“ Take care, do not enter that field.”
The magistrate observed:“It no doubt Seems ridiculous to an
“ Englishman that a bond fide owner should be kept- out of his pro-“ perty by such means, but I have no doubt that the superstitious“ villagers believed that their lives would be forfeited if they entered“ the field, and that the accused placed the ‘ bola ’ there, intending“ that it should have that effect.” He ordered them to pay a fineof Rs. 100 each, or in default to undergo sis months’ rigorousimprisonment.
The accused appealed.
1901.
July 87 andAvgust 12.
( 224 )
iwi. Bamarawikrama, for appellants.—Accused did not threatenAmjwu 12. anybody. He said nothing to the villagers; he only muttered
some incantations and went through a ceremony which was in
itself harmless. The complainant admits that he was notfrightened. If other people were, it was due to their weakminds and not to any intimidation on the part of the accused.The accused did nothing more than go through a ceremony.[Lawrie, A.C.J.—How is this criminal intimidation ?]
Allan Drieherg, for respondent.—The effect of the ceremonywas to put those of complainant’s friends who were going to helphim to reap the harvest in fear of their lives, so that the ceremonydid intimidate the villagers by an act which they believed a threat,to cause death, and which the accused knew would be 60 regarded-The section does not state that the injury to be suffered should beat the hand of man only.
Samarawikrama.—Injury is defined in the Penal Code.That definition should be applied here. Injury is harm done byone person to another illegally. The harm that may be caused bysupernatural agencies is not within the scope of that definition.Ca8im v. Kaliya, 2 C. L. R. 13S.
Cur. adv. null.
12th August, 1901. Lawrie, A.C.J.—
This case discloses a curious survival of an Old Kandyan custom.Sir John D’Oyly, writing eighty years ago, has a short chapter onHuniyam. “ This ” (he says) “is a species of sorcery, and washeld in general abhorence. It consists in making an image ordelineating a figure to represent an enemy, or in writing his nameand using diabolical arts, ceremonies, and imprecations, wherebyit is believed that skilful persons have the power of occasioninghis death, sickness, or some heavy calamity.
“ It is said ” (continues Sir John D’Oyly) “ that in the reign ofNarandra Singha several persons suffered executions for thiscrime, and that their lands were confiscated or delivered to theinjured party.
“ In the reign of Kirti Siri five persons suffered execution forhaving practised this sorcery against the king as an act of treason.”
In this 'case the accused wrote the name of the complainant ona coconut, which was sprinkled with the blood of a cock; theyburied it with imprecations, and over it was placed a “ bola ” of apeculiar and significant shape; by these acts they intended tothreaten that misfortunes would befall the complainant andx allwho should join in entering the field and reaping the crop. That,
( 225 )
in my opinion, falls under the 483rd section of our Penal Code,and amounts to criminal intimidation.
The Ceylon Code omits section 508 of the Indian Code, whichmore directly meets the ease. The 508th section makes it anoffence in India to cause acts to be done or omitted to be done byinducing the belief that, if the person does or omits to do them,he will be rendered an object of divine displeasure.
How that section is worked in India I do not. know. If con-strued strictly, I fear that clergymen commit this offence daily,and that few of them would escape liability to pay a weekly finefor the Sunday sermon.
In my opinion the accused in this case threatened the complain-.ant. True, they did not say that they themselves would do aninjury, but they said that injury would certainly follow if anact was done. They tried to prevent the complainant doing theact by intimidating him, and that was criminal, because the actwas one which the complainant was legally entitled to do.
I affirm the conviction.
1901.
July 27 and
August 12,
Lawbie.
A.O.J.
♦