BALADIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the same judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, on leave granted by it at the same time that the judgment was delivered. Something will have to be said in the course of this judgment about the legality or regularity of the leave so granted. There are 16 appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 1954 and only one appellant in 119 of 1954. Both the appeals relate to the occurrence which took place on the morning of 7th February 1952 at village Groan, Police station Ait, in the district of Jalaun of the State of Uttar Pradesh. 57 persons were placed on trial before the learned Sessions Judge of Orai on charges under section 120-B and 148, Indian Penal Code, as also under sections 201, 302, 325 and 452, all read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. The learned trial judge acquitted all the accused in respect of the charge under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. He convicted 36 of them under sections 148, 201/49 and 302/149, Indian Penal Code. of whom nine were sentenced to death and the others to transportation for life under section 302/149, to two years rigorous imprisonment under section 148. Indian Penal Code and to seven years rigorous imprisonment under section 201/149 in respect of four of them and to three years imprisonment in respect of the rest. No more need be said about the convictions and sentences under section 325/149, Indian Penal Code, because those have not been maintained by the High Court on appeal. Some of them had also been convicted under section 452 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. One more a accused named Kamoda Chambar was convicted under section 325/149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. Thus in all 37 out of the 57 accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial court, partly in agreement and party in disagreement with the assessors.

(2.) On appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal of Baladin Lodhi, who is the first appellant before us, and affirmed his convictions and sentences under sections 148, 452, 302/149 and 201/149, Indian Penal Code and accepted the reference, by confirming the sentence of death passed against him in respect of the charge under section 302/149. In respect of the other appellants who had been sentenced to death, the High Court allowed the appeal of four of them and acquitted them in respect of the others allowed their appeal on the question of sentence under section 302/149 by giving them the lesser sentence of transportation for life. The High Court allowed the appeal of twenty of the appellants before it and acquitted them of all charges. In the result, the High Court confirmed the convictions and sentenced in respect of the remaining 17 appellants before it with the modification on the question of sentence as aforesaid. Hence 16 of them figure as the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 1954 and Jangi is the sole appellant in Criminal appeal No. 119 of 1954. Both these appeals have been heard together and will be disposed of by this judgment.

(3.) Before setting out the case against the accused it is necessary briefly to notice the background of the events leading up to the ghastly occurrence. Twelve or thirteen refugee families from the West Punjab were rehabilitated in village Goran which is about 10 miles from Orai town by the direct 'Kachha' route and about 25 miles by the road proper. The State Government provided those displaced families with lands for cultivation and sites in the village 'abadi' for residential purposes, as also loans for helping them to settle in their new homes. But unfortunately the new-comers were not welcome to the old residents of the village because they were looked upon as competitors for house sites and culturable lands of the village. The result was a great deal of tension between the old residents on the one side and the new settlers on the other. Mutual recriminations followed and some incidents of a minor nature, like cattle grazing disputes and simple assaults, took place. All the four years that the new displaced families had come to stay in the village there were allegations of harassment on both sides and complaints to the public authorities. The gulf between the two factions widened until the climax was reached on the 4th February 1952, that is to say, three days before the occurrence which was the subject matter of the charges against the accused persons. On that date Vir Singh 'alias Vir Lodhi was alleged to have secured the services of one Shambhu Lodhi, resident of district Hamirpur, who is alleged to be a notorious character. It is admitted by both parties that an incident took place between Diwan Singh and Mangal Singh, two of the displaced persons on the one side, and Vir Singh Lodhi and Shambhu Lodhi on the other, in which grievous hurt was said to have been caused to Shambhu Lodhi and simple injuries to the displaced persons, leading to the lodging of counter informations at the police station. Both sides had some injuries, though not equally serious but it appears, as found by the courts below, that the incident was very lightly treated by the police and at all as the precursor of more serious events which actually took place three days later. As the refugees found the attitude of the local police hostile to them, 13 male members of the refugee families including Mool Singh, Mela Singh, Sant Singh and Ravel Singh, four of the six persons who were cruelly done to death in cold blood in the occurrence of the 17th February, came to Orai on the morning of the 5th February 1952 to report the matter to the district authorities and to the Refugee Officer. They succeeded only in making an application to the Refugee Officer and could not get the district authorities to lend them a hearing. Disappointed at this attitude of the district authorities they decided to file a regular complaint in court against Shambhu aforesaid and others. They spent the 6 February in making further attempts to contact the public authorities to ventilate their grievances and in preparing a complaint to be filed in court.