HANSA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The five appellants before me have all been convicted for the commission of offences under Sections 148, 304 read with. Sections 149 & 323 read with Section 149 I. P. C. and have been sentenced to one year's R, I., five years R. I. and six months R, I. respectively.

(2.) The accused persons as well as Charni deceased and his nephews, Rupa and Mukhtar, resided in village Lachhoi, police station, Jahangira-bad, district Bulandshar. The prosecution story is that on the 31st of May 1950 at about 6 P. M. Sukhpal, son of Amar Singh appellant, let loose his she-buflaloes in the sugarcane field of Charni and his nephews. When Charni and his nephews saw this, they rounded up the she-buffaloes and started with them for the cattle pound. On seeing this Sukhpal went running to his hut and informed the members of his family that the she-buflaloes were being taken to the pound. On hearing this nine persons including the five appellants arrived on the scene armed with lathis and spears and wanted to rescue the cattle. Charni and his nephews resisted the rescue of the cattle and the accused persons on this started beating Charni and his nephews, On an alarm being raised, a number of villagers arrived on the spot and the accused then left the place. As a result of the beating that were received Charni and one of the nephews, namely, Rupa became unconscious. Subsequently they were both put on a bullock-cart and taken to the police station by Mukhtar, the other nephew of Charni. While they were on their way, Charni died but Rupa subsequently recovered, A first Information report of the occurrence was lodged in the police station the same day at 1.10 P. M. and the police station is at a distance of about four miles from village Lachhoi. All the facts given above are narrated in this report and all the nine assailants are also named therein. It cannot be said that there was any delay made in lodging the report because it must have taken some time to arrange for the bullock-cart and then to have travelled a distance of four miles along with the injured persons who were lying on the cart. A period of less than four hours therefore cannot, by any means, be said to be an unduly long period. All the nine persons mentioned in the report were sent up for trial under the Sections mentioned above. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted four of the accused persons, viz. Govinda, Balla, Jodha, Sheoraj and convicted the five appellants and sentenced them as mentioned above,

(3.) The defence of Amar Singh appellant was that Hansraj appellant had taken the produce of a grove from Babu zamindar in the year in question. Charni and others did not like this and at 5.30 P. M. on the date of the occurrence while Amar Singh was cutting rizka grass in his field, he heard a noise and went to the mango grove. He found two baskets full of mangoes kept there and some mangoes lying about. Hansraj asked Charni and his companions not to pluck mangoes at which they abused Hansraj. They then attacked Amar Singh and Hansraj, and it was in self-defence that Amar Singh and Hansraj also took up the lathis, which the accused had put on the ground while plucking the mangoes, and tried to defend themselves. Practically to the same effect is the defence of Hansa also. He merely added that the grove previously formed part of the ancestral holding of Charni and others but the Zamindars had dispossessed them from this holding. They therefore did not like the idea of Hansa having purchased the mangoes from the zamindar. They consequently came in the evening and started cutting mangoes and when Hansa asked them not to do so they Started beating Hansa and Amar Singh who had reached the place meanwhile. Hansa and Amar Singh also plied their lathis in their self-defence. Hansa also stated that he went to make the report at the police station but the police did not record his report but arrested him instead. The defence of the other accused was that they had been falsely implicated and were not present at the scene of occurrence. The accused then set up a right of private defence of their person and property and shifted the scene to the mango grove. Besides this plea of self-defence another plea of self-defence also has been taken before me and that is based 011 the statement of P, W. Murad. In cross-examination this witness stated that Sukhpal was grazing the she-buffaloes in the grove. Then Mukhtar asked Sukhpal to take out the she-buffaloes from the sugar cane field. On this Sukhpal drove them from the field to the grove and Charni, Mukhtar and Rupa then drove the she-buffaloes from the grove. It has been argued that this statement shows that Charni and others had not seized the cattle while they were in their sugar cane field, but tried to take them to the cattle pound from the grove after the she-buffaloes had left the field and had gone to the grove. Charni had a right to seize the cattle only while they were trespassing their field but had no right to seize them after they had been removed to the mango grove and the appellants had every right to rescue their cattle which had been improperly seized. I shall consider both these points after dealing with the prosecution evidence on the record.