SAFU MIA AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a conviction under Section 147, I. P. C. and a sentence of fine of Rs. 150/ - against each accused and in default the accused were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused were tried with the help of assessors and the majority verdict with regard to the offence under Section 147, I. P. C. was that all the accused were not guilty but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, U. A. D. on appreciation of the evidence found a case made out against the accused persons under Section 147, I. P. C. and sentenced them as aforesaid.

(2.) THERE were as many as twelve accused persons who were jointly tried and the allegation against them was that they assembled armed with 'lathis', spears, 'daos' etc., on a pathway leading from Feral Mea's 'bari' (homestead) to the Sonai Road and they not only blocked the passage by ' digging drains and planting banana trees and raising fencing round it but they chased the complainant Ferai Meah and his supporters from the land in dispute to the inner side of the compound of Feral Mea and two of the accused Muslim Meah and Batai Meah set fire to the cowshed belonging to the complainant and that accused Master Ali induced these persons to do so. They were, however, driven away subsequently by the complainant's party and the accused could not succeed in doing further damage.

(3.) IT is admitted by both parties that there was a Civil Court's decree passed by the Munsiff of Silchar in favour of the accused party with respect to the land in dispute. But on appeal, the said decree was set aside and the complainant's party were allowed access to the land in dispute. It was further found that the alleged rioting took place on 21 -1 -50 when the appeal (T. Appeal No. 38 of 1949) was pending in the Subordinate Judge's Court against the decree passed in T. Suit No 295 of 1947 by the Munsiff. It is therefore evident that at the point of time when the alleged unlawful assembly took place, the land in question was declared to be in rightful possession of the accused party and the plaintiff and his party were restrained by injunction from using the said land as their path.