RAM DAHIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the patna High court dismissing two separate appeals presented by Ram Dahin singh and the other five appellants against the conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah.

(2.) The prosecution story may now be briefly stated. A little after sunrise on 4/11/1963, Ghurfekan Chamar (P. W. 1) along with his two sons mangru (P. W. 12) and Somaru (P. W. 14) and also certain women including rutkaiyan Kewatin, wife of one Kalu Kewat, went to harvest paddy crop standing on a portion of plot No. 103 which had been sown by him. The harvesting was complete by mid-day. Thereafter the harvested crop was tied in bundles. Four such bundles were carried by Imrit, Doma, Natha and navami to the Khalihan of Ghurfekan. Doma, Navami and Natha thereafter tied another three bundles and started with them for the Khalihan. They had hardly gone some distance towards the north of Ghurfekan's paddy field when a mob of about 30 or 40 persons, including the six appellants and the other accused persons (acquitted by the Trial court) armed with gun, Bhalla and lathis came from the north and surrounded them. Ram Dahin Singh, appellant, was armed with a gun, Loku Ahir, appellant, with a Bhalla and the others with Lathis. The three bundles of paddy were snatched by them from Doma, navami and Natha and thrown on the ground. Ghurfekan rushed from his field and protested to Ram Dahin saying that the harvested paddy crop had been grown by him on the land which had been in his possession since a long time. Some other persons also arrived there to support Ghurfekan's claim. They included Sukhari, Behalia (since dead) , Ghuran Khewat (P. W. 15) , barup Bahelia (P. W. 18) , Chabi Chamar (P. W. 16) , Banshi Bahelia (P. W. 11) and Subedar, caste Bind (P. W. 8). Sukhari joined in the protest against the highhandedness of Ram Dahin Singh and his companions. At the suggestion of Satyanarain Singh, appellant, Loku Ahir, appellant, gave a Ballam blow to Sukhari injuring him in the abdomen. As a result, Sukhari fell down. Umrao Singh, appellant, then gave two or three Lathi blows to Ghuran Kewat. The helpers of Ghurfekan then brandished their Lathis thereby injuring Chhedi ahir, appellant. Seeing this Satyanarain Singh instigated Ram Dahin Singh to use his gun. Ram Dahin Singh thereupon fired several shots from his gun thereby killing at the spot Kutkaiyan, Natha, Doma and Navami. Soon thereafter Ram Dahin Singh and his party left the place. The chowkidar was thereupon called and Ghurfekan, accompanied by the chowkidar, lmrit (P. W. 7) and Balrup (P. W. 18) started for the police station. On their way to the police station near village Lachumanpur a few persons assaulted lmrit with Lathis. But on alarm being raised by Ghurfekan and his companions, the chowkidar of that village came to the spot, whereupon the miscreants ran away. Ghurfekan then proceeded to Chainpur police station and there lodged the first information report, Ex. 6, at about 5 p. m. It was recorded by Baban Singh (P. W. 21) , Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the absence of the officer-in-charge. At about 8 p. m. Ghhedi Ahir, appellant,also appeared at the police station and made a statement on the basis of which the first information report Ex. 6/1 of the counter-case was recorded. After investigation a Chalan was put into court against 24 persons) including the six appellants. They were all committed to the court of Sessions for being tried for various offences. Ram Dahin Singh and Loku Ahir were charged with offences under Section 302) Indian penal code Satyanarain Singh was charged with an offence under Section 302, read with Section 109, Indian penal code for the abetment of the murders with which Ram Dahin Singh and-Loku Ahir were charged. All the accused, except Ram Dahin Singh, were further charged with offences under Section 302, read with Section 149, Indian penal code All the accused were also charged with the offence of rioting ; Ram Dahin Singh and Loku Ahir under section 148) Indian penal code and the rest under Section 147, Indian penal code Ram Dahin singh and Satyanarain Singh pleaded alibi, the former alleging that on the day of the occurrence he was in Varanasi because he was required to appear in the case of one Munno in the court of the Railway Magistrate and that he actually made a statement in that court. According to him, he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of one Kapil Deo Pathak, carinda of Biswanath Pandey against whom he had appeared as a witness in his title suit against the Tarkeshwar Estate. Ram Dahin Singh stated that he had nothing to do. with plot No. 103 which was the land in dispute giving rise to the occurrence. According to Satyanarain Singh's plea he was at Bhabua on the day of the occurrence and had there attested a mortgage deed, Ex. A. The defence case generally was that a number of persons had purchased plots nos. 103, 106 and 121 of village Kakri Kundi along with some other land estate. On the date of the occurrence Prabhu Narain Singh, armed with gun, with kapil Deo Pathak came with a number of persons including Doma, Natha, navami, Imrit, Sukhari, Sanari, Mangru and Ghurfekan and started taking forcibly the paddy crop of survey plot No. 121 which had been grown by the aforesaid purchasers and harvested by them. Chedi Ahir, Umrao Singh and loku Ahir protested, whereupon Kapil Deo instigated his companions to use force. Several persons thereupon surrounded the accused and they were assaulted. On alarm having been raised, a number of people gathered there and Prabhu narain Singh fired from his gun. The persons who had gathered there then dispersed. It was not known who was killed. by the gun fired by Pradhu narain Singh. According to the statement of Chedi Ahir, appellant, the land claimed by Ghurfekan as his, had also been included in the sale of 1962 in favour of some of the accused persons. But the crop on that land was not being cut by Doma, Natha and others. That crop had been cut two days earlier. The reference is apparently to plot No. 103. The crop which, according to this appellant, was being cut was on the adjacent land to the south. On this point the statement of Loku Ahir, appellant, is also to the same effect. The case of the accused in respect of plot No. 103 was that the tarkeshwar Estate had come into possession of the land in question on 3/07/1951 and it remained in its possession till 1962 when the land was sold to various persons including some of the cultivators and their relations by means of a registered sale deed, dated 20/11/1962.

(3.) The Trial court on a consideration of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that Tarkeshwar Estate from whom plot No. 103 was claimed to have been purchased under Ex. C had not got physical possession of that land till the sale in November, 1962 and the purchasers also did not get into possession of this land after 1962, there being no reliable evidence of their possession on the record. The documents relating to the fixation of rent of certain lands in the name of the deity on which the accused had relied did not carry much weight with the court because in a later order the names of Ghurfekan and otherswere directed to be entered in the Jamabandi on the ground that earlier their names had been erroneously omitted. The orders in the Tanaza matters relied upon by the accused were also held valueless as they were all passed in 1954 long after the occurrence. Exhibit V, an order dated 13/07/1964 also made during Tanaza proceedings by means of which) on the basis of the sale deed, dated 20/11/1962, the name of Dandiswami was directed to be entered in place of Mahant and Shebait of Tarkeshwar Estate was held to be of no effect as against Ghurfekan because he was no party to those proceedings. The Trial court further observed that if the land had been in actual possession of the Tarkeshwar Estate then the accounts of the expenses incurred on its cultivation and of income therefrom must in the ordinary course have been maintained by it and it would also have secured receipts for the assessed rent paid by it to the State. As no such evidence was produced nor was reliable oral evidence of actual possession by the Tarkeshwar Estate led in the case the court nagatived the plea of its possession. The document Ex. C also did not impress the court. This is what the court said in this connection.