SHEO RATAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by six persons, Sheo Ratan, Rameshwar, Changa, Gaya Prasad, Ram Autar and Jagannath, each of whom has been convicted under Sec. 396, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. According to the prosecution, Mahrajdin, who is a resident of village Jaitwardih, had a pea field in another village Pandila Kachhar at a distance of two and a half miles from his residential village Jaitwardih. He had cut the crop in the pea field on 4th March 1953, and had stored the harvested crop in the field. Early in the morning of 5th March 1953 Mahrajdin and his nephew Ram Newaz went out on a camel to bring the harvested crop from the pea field. Certain other men also went to village Pandila Kachhar on another camel. It was found that the six appellants were collecting the pea crop, which Mahrajdin had harvested on the previous day. On finding that the six men were committing theft of the pea crop, Ram Newaz got down from his camel, and challenged the six thieves. The six accused turned round, and beat Ram Newaz with lathis as he had recognized them while they were removing the pea crop. Ram Newaz fell down badly injured; and the six accused left the place. Ram Newaz was brought to his village Jaitwardih, and was then removed to police station Soraon, where Mahrajdin lodged a report about the occurrence. Ram Newaz was taken to the dispensary at Soraon. He died at the dispensary the same day as a result of the injuries. The dead body was sent to Allahabad for postmortem examination. The six accused were prosecuted under Secs. 147 and 302/149, I.P.C. The learned Civil and Sessions Judge of Allahabad, who trial the case, framed a charge in the alternative under Sec. 396, I.P.C. All the accused pleaded not guilty. They said that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity with one Masuriya Din. All the four assessors were of opinion that, none of the six accused is guilty of any offence. The learned Civil and Sessions Judge disagreed with the unanimous opinion of the assessors. He convicted all the six accused under Sec. 396, I.P.C. The accused were acquitted of the charge under Sec. 302/149, I.P.C. In view of the conviction under Sec. 396, I.P.C., no conviction was recorded under Sec. 147, I.P.C. Ram Newaz was beaten at village Pandila Kachhar shortly after daybreak on 5th March 1953. Mahrajdin lodged the first information report the same day at 12 -20 p.m. Police Station Soraon is at a distance of eight miles from the place of the occurrence. Considering this distance of eight miles, it cannot be said that there was delay in lodging the report. Names of all the six appellants were mentioned in the report as the culprits. Mahrajdin dictated a detailed report. That report substantially tallies with Mahrajdin's statement made in court.

(2.) The prosecution produced twelve witnesses before the court. These twelve witnesses included six persons, who claimed to be eye -witnesses of the occurrence. The six alleged eye -witnesses were Mahrajdin (P.W. 1), Bhola (P.W. 2), Sukru (P.W. 3), Sri Nath (P.W. 4), Ramnath (P.W. 5) and Ram Kripal (P.W. 6). Names of Sri Nath and Ramnath were not mentioned in the first information report. The two witnesses made a number of contradictions. The learned Sessions Judge noted that the two witnesses gave evidence in a hearing manner. The evidence of Srinath and Ramnath is not reliable.

(3.) P.W. 6 is Ram Kripal. He was the owner of one of the camels, which was taken to the place of the occurrence. Ram Kripal is a resident of another village Barnoli, which is at a distance of six miles from village Jaitwardih. Ram Kripal made mistakes in identifying individual accused both in the court of session and before the committing Magistrate. We, therefore, cannot attach much value to Ram Kripal's statement as regards parts played by individual accused. But Ram Kripal appears to be an independent witness. His name was mentioned in the first information report. We may make some use of Ram Kripal's statement as regards the broad features of the incident.