BARSA MAJHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein who are 23 in number have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Mayurbhanj under sections 148 and 395 of I.P.C. and each of them sentenced to R.I. for two years and 5 years respectively in respect of the two offences, sentences to run concurrently, 35 persons were originally charged, three of whom died during the pendency of the trial and nine others have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. This case arose out of the Adibasi disturbances in the district of Mayurbhanj which followed on the integration of the Mayurbhanj State with Orissa. There was a section of the Adibasis who were opposed to integration with Orissa and wanted integration with Bihar. There was consequent agitation for merger with Bihar by this section with the help of Adibasis of Bihar. In a short time this agitation took a serious turn. There were uprisings which assumed serious and violent forms in the early part of February, 1949. To meet the situation, the S.D.M. of Bamanghati promulgated orders under Section 144 Cr. P.C. on 5-2-49 banning meetings and carrying of deadly weapons. These orders were disobeyed and there were mob demonstrations accompanied by lootings and murders. The situation was ultimately brought under control by vigorous action of the military police. The present case relates to one such alleged disturbance, in the village Gitilata.

(2.) Gitilata is a village consisting mostly of Adibasis. One street therein called Patra Sahi is inhabited by Oriya Patras of Weaver class who were in favour of the integration of Mayurbhanj State with Orissa. Besides, there have been previously some ill-feelings between the Patras and the Adibasis of the village. There had been a number of prosecutions against some of the Adibasis of the village in respect of smuggling of rice to Bihar. This appears from Exts. 4-1 to 4-24 and is spoken to by P. W. 17. In these cases the Patras figured as witnesses against the Adibasis. The Adibasis had strong suspicion that the Patras were acting as informers against them. They had therefore a grievance against the Patras which came to a head in the general atmosphere of opposition to the merger with Orissa, which was favoured by the Patras. The prosecution case is that on 26-2-49 which was the Sivaratri day, the Adibasis of Gitilata along with the Adibasis of neighbouring villages numbering some thousands raided the Patra Sahi armed with bows, arrows and lathis and Tangias. They gathered near the village Chattan where some Patras happened to be sitting. They asked them as to why they gave information to the police about their activities and started beating them and chased them. The Adibasis thereafter entered the houses of the Patras, broke the boxes and other moveables therein and carried away some articles and cash therefrom. It is further said that at about dusk two of the Patras were tied with ropes, dragged and taken away outside the village to Jaradunguri nearby and that in the night they were killed and offered as a sacrifice after performing a ceremony called Jhumper in order that the Gods may be propitiated and thereby success in their agitation against the merger may be vouchsafed.

(3.) The accused were charged in the Court below in respect of five offences, (1) under Section 183 I.P.C. for disobedience of the order promulgated under Section 144 Cr. P.C., (2) under Section 148 I. P. C. for rioting armed with deadly weapons, (3) under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code for committing dacoity, (4) under Section 302 of tne Indian Penal Code for committing murder and (5) for a special offence called Melee under Regulation 7 of 1892 of Mayurbhanj State. The accused were all acquitted at the trial in respect of the offences under sections 144 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code as also of the special offence of Melee under the Mayurbhanj Law. It is accordingly unnecessary to refer to any of the details of the prosecution evidence which are connected with the said charges. It is sufficient in this appeal to confine our attention to that portion of the evidence adduced at the trial bearing on the two charges relating to sections 148 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The questions that arise for consideration are (1) Is there sufficient evidence that there was an unlawful assembly of Adibasis at Gitilata on 26-2-49 as alleged by the prosecution and is there sufficient evidence that the offences of rioting under Section 148 and of dacoity under Section 395 have been committed by members of that unlawful assembly. (2) If so, which of these accused are individually guilty under either or both of the sections.