BANKA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of two persons Banka and Laxmi. The former has been convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Deoria under Sec. 331 I. P. C. and has been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The latter has been convicted under Sec. 331 read with Sec. 109 I. P. C. and also under Sec. 330 I. P. C. For the former offence he has been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and for the latter to five years rigorous imprisonment. The two sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case was that Ramakant was the Karinda of two Zamindars Babu Kamla Singh and Hira Singh. He was in charge of their Chhawani and used to reside in Tola Piparahia of village Badahara Lakshmipur. The two appellants who are own brothers had borrowed some money from the masters of Ramakant by executing a pronote. In connection with the debt they had barrowcd they had put Ramakant in possession of two plots of land No. 1992 and 1996 of village Badahara Lakshmipur. The total area of the two plots was 1.75 acres. They had a grievance against Ramakant because according to them the debt had been satisfied but Ramakant had not returned to them the pronote in respect of the debt, nor had he restored to them the possession over the two plots. Ramakant however, contended that the whole debt had not been satisfied. On the 14th of July, 1957 at about 3.0 P. M. Ramakant left his house for Tola Jagannathpur. He reached the Ghota (a sort of hut). He was going to see one Jwala Babu in connection with the purchase of some land from him. One Mahanath Rai was the person who was arranging for the sale. Ramakant had taken with him a person named Sahdeo Ahir. He reached the Ghota (a sort of hut) of Awadhi Mallah in Tola Jagannathpur and stopped there. He met Mahanth Rai there and had a talk with him. As a result of the talk it became unnecessary for him to proceed to the house of Jwala Babu. He then returned from the hut of Awadhi mallah and was going back to his own house. At about 5.00 P.M. he reached near a mound on the way where there were 'moonj' shrubs on both sides. As soon as he reached there Banka appellant emerged from the 'moonj' shrubs and demanded from him the pronote which he had executed and possession over the two plots. He was told that the pronote was at the 'chhawani' and that if the full amount of the debt was paid it will be given back to him. Banka then began to abuse Ramakant and caught hold of his arms. By the time Lakshmi had also emerged from the 'moonj' shrubs and began to beat Ramakant with his lathi. Ramakant fell down on the ground. Laxmi then caught hold of his hand while Banka put his fingers in the sockets of the eyes of Ramakant and pulled out both of his eye-balls. An alarm was raised by Ramakant and his companion Sahdeo who was going a few paces ahead of him and several other persons including Ramjati, Rajdeo and Bhairo responded to the alarm. The appellants however, succeeded in running away. Ramakant was carried to his 'chhawani' and from there to the police station which was six miles away. He lodged a report there at about 8.45 P. M. on the same day. He was medically examined. Investigation was started and as a result of it the two appellants were prosecuted and ultimately committed to the court of session to stand their trial.

(3.) The appellants denied the prosecution allegations. Banka could not offer any explanation as to why the case had been started against him falsely. Laxmi said that he had been implicated because he was the brother of Banka. The appellants said that they had all along been in possession of the plots Nos. 1992 and 1996 and Ramakant had never been in possession of the same. They also suggested that the eyes of Ramakant had been taken out in connection with his licentiousness.