BIKRAMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Six persons Bikarma, Parshottam, Patiram and Debi sons of Sarup and Surat and Baleshar sons of Mahadeo, all residents of village Kaneri, have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh on charges under Sections 147, I. P. C., 24, Cattle Trespass Act read with Section 149, I, P. C., 323 read with Section 149, I. P. C., 302 read with Section 149, I. P. O. Bikarma, Debi and Baleshar have further been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. F. O., and Baleshar under Section 302, I. P. C. Under Section 302 read with Section 149, I, P. C., all have been awarded life imprisonment. The sentence under Section 147 is to one year's rigorous imprisonment and under Section 24 read with Section 149, I.P.C., to three months' rigorous imprisonment, The sentence under Section 323 read with Section 149, I. P. C., is again to one year's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The facts leading to their conviction were as follows:

(3.) All the six accused denied the charges against them, and pleaded that they had been entangled by the complainants and the witnesses on account of enmity. It is, however, significant that no specific enmity was pointed out. Another significant fact is that although the accused did not so plead in their statements before the Magistrate, or the learned Sessions Judge, an effort was made during the cross-examination of P. W. 1 and some other prosecution witnesses that the cattle belonging to the complainants had damaged the field belonging to Debi accused and then there was a marpit; obviously meaning that the marpit in which the complainants' party received injuries arose in those circumstances. This suggestion was neither contained in the statements of the accused nor was any effort made to establish it otherwise. In fact no serious effort appears to have been made to pursue it either. We are not convinced that the marpit resulting in the death of Sripat, or injury to his brother Ramsukh, was the result of any such trespass by their cattle into the fields of Debi. (4) We have already noticed that the learned Sessions Judge convicted all the six accused on charges under Section 24, Cattle Trespass Act and Sections 323 and 302, I. P. 'C., read with Sections 34 and 149, I, P. C., as also under Section 147, I. P. C. The learned Advocate for the appellants has not addressed us so far as cases under Sections 147, 323 and Section 24, Cattle Trespass Act are concerned. The case has been mainly discussed on the question whether the offence, so far as Sripat's killing was concerned, amounted to murder or was at the most culpable homicide punishable under Section 304, I. P. C. We have nevertheless glanced through the evidence in the case and have no doubt that, the prosecution story as stated by these witnesses is true. Ramsukh, brother of Sripat, who received injuries in the course of the beating, deposed that while he and his brother Sripat were driving away the cattle to the cattle-pound, the six accused arrived there, armed with lathis, with determination to rescue the cattle by force. The accused asked Sripat and Ram Sukh to release the cattle but when they declined, Bikarma, Debi and Baleshar took charge of Sripat and the remaining three of Ramsukh. Bikarma then shouted and dealt a lathi blow to Sripat, next Debi gave a similar blow and lastly, it is stated, Baleshar inflicted a lathi blow on the head and fractured his skull and as a result Sripat fell on the ground. He also stated that Patiram, Parshotam and Surat gave lathi blows on him as well causing injuries on his person. Besides Ramsukh, the prosecution examined some other eye-witnesses also including Chandradeo, Tileshar, Baijnath and Panchu. These persons, whose fields are close by or otherwise were present at the time of occurrence, for which presence they have given valid explanation, have similarly stated that the accused party, consisting of the six accused, arrived armed with lathis and demanded the release of the cattle, but when Sripat and his brother refused to do so, they started beating them with lathis with the object of releasing the cattle. In fact after the two brothers had been beaten and injured the accused took away the cattle with them. There is nothing in their testimony to discard the version given by them, or to show that they are not independent witnesses. A faint suggestion was made during the cross-examination of Tileshar that he had some quarrel with Mahadeo over irrigation intending thereby that he was inimical. This was denied by him and there is no reason to accept the defence suggestion against him. There is no evidence to support the suggestion. Likewise a suggestion was thrown as against panchu P. W. 5 also that there was some quarrel between him and the accused in connection with a mend, This was denied by him, and it does not appear that any report either about any such incident was lodged in the police. We entirely agree with the learned Sessions Judge that their integrity is not disproved.