KARAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROSECUTION case Is that on 22nd of March, 1964 there was communal disturbance at Rajgangpur in the district of Sundargarh. The S. D. O. , Sundargarh (P. W. 21) promulgated an order under Section 144 Cr. P. C. and imposed curfew prohibiting the inhabitants of Rajgangpur from holding any meeting or from coming out of their houses. In defiance of the order, a mob of about 3000 persons armed with deadly weapons started proceeding towards the Musalman Pada of rajgangpur giving slogans that they would assault and kill the Muslims. P. W. 21, the local police and Orissa Military Police stationed themselves at a paddy field in between the Musalman Pada and the advancing mob. An order was proclaimed by the S. D. O. directing the mob to disperse. The mob took a defiant attitude and continued to advance. The S. D. O. accordingly ordered opening of fire. After the fire was opened, the mob dispersed and the rioters started running away in different directions. Police chased the rioters and apprehended large number of persons including Karam Singh (petitioner in Crl. Rev. 158/66) and Mahabir (petitioner in Crl. Rev. 174/66 ). Todiram (petitioner in Crl. Rev. 183/66) had a gun and was in the front of the mob. He fired two shots towards the police party. One of these spent up cartridges fired from the gun of Todiram was recovered from the place of occurrence. Karam Singh and Mahabir were arrested by the military police while they were running away. Todiram ran away and would not be arrested at the spot but was subsequently arrested. Prosecution case regarding the offence under section 332/149 I. P. C. is that while the mob was running away after the firing some of the members of the mob caused hurt to the constables (P. Ws. 24 and 25 ). The defence of the three petitioners was that they were not members of the unlawful assembly. The learned Courts below convicted Todiram under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for two years. Karam Singh and Mahabir were convicted under Section 148 I. P. C. and under Section 332/149 I. P. C. Each of them was sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year under Section 148 I. P. C. and no separate sentence was imposed under Section 332/149 I. P. C. The three petitioners along with 42 others were jointly tried by the learned Assistant "sessions Judge. The cases of the three petitioners would be separately dealt with.

(2.) CRIMINAL Revision No. 158 of 1966: Karam Singh is admittedly a resident of balangir and had gone to Rajgangpur on private business. His plea was that he was arrested by the Orissa Military Police on suspicion while he was returning from gurudwar where he had gone as it was a Sunday. He was detained by the police some time before the firing took place and after the firing he was brought to the spot from where he was taken to the Thana. Both the courts below have rejected the defence plea, that the petitioner was arrested before the police firing. After having heard Mr. Mohanty at length I am satisfied that the conclusion of the courts below is correct. It is unnecessary to re-examine the evidence on this point which has been carefully sifted.

(3.) IT is the common case of the parties that none of the prosecution witnesses has seen Karam Singh as a member of the mob. P. W. 29 deposed that accused Karam singh held either a lathi or a spear. The witness is not sure about the weapon which Karam Singh held. There is no other corroborating evidence on the point. The weapon has also not been seized. I do not accordingly place reliance on this part of the prosecution case that Karam Singh carried any weapon. The only evidence against the petitioner is that he was arrested at a distance of about 30 feet where dead bodies were lying while he was running away after the firing. The conviction of the petitioner has been based entirely on circumstantial evidence. a conviction on circumstantial evidence is well founded provided the chain is complete. There should be no missing link so as to create a reasonable doubt against the charge being brought home to the accused,