PREMLAL HAJRA Vs. KING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications in revision arise out of a single case foe the prosecution resulting in the conviction of the six petitioners, four in the one and two in the other, who have been convicted and sentenced by the Courts below under Section 879, Penal Code to nine month' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 353, Penal Code, to six months' rigorous imprisonment, no separate sentence being recorded in respect on the conviction under Section 143, Penal Code. The two sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that there had been a dispute between one Sitai Singh on the one hand and some of the petitioners on the other in respect of about 40 big baa of cultivated land in village Kamilpur within the Police station Dhamdaha. Sitat Singh had instituted a civil suit in respect of the property, and had prayed for appointment of a receiver in respect of the property. He had also obtained an order from the Court appointing a pleader of the Court, Babu Ram Narain Das Commissioner, to go to the spot, and take charge of and harvest the standing paddy crop on the entire area. He reached the spot on the afternoon of 12th January 1943, and started getting the standing paddy crop harvested. He could succeed in getting the standing paddy crop cut out in respect of about four to five bighas, As it became evening time, he directed the labourers, who had cut the crop to store it in a neutral Khaliban, belonging to Sk. Subedar in the same village for safe custody and thrashing; but the accused party led by the petitioner Parmanand Thakur, who is said to be a Socialist leader in that locality, resisted the removal of the crop, and used bad abusive languages against the Commissioner, and even threatened him with use of force. Finding the attitude of the mob, consisting of the petitioners and many others, very threatening, the commissioner did not think it safe and advisable to persist in his attempt to get the cut paddy removed to the Khalihan of Sheikh Subedar. He left the crop in charge of a constable Mohammad Kazim Khan and Barka Besa, who were there on the spot in connection with an apprehended breach of the peace in that locality. On the morning of 13th January 1943, the petitioners came with a large mob, and began harvesting the paddy. The Commissioner sent a report of the occurrence of the last evening and of the morning of 13th January, to the Subordinate Judge who had deputed him, as also to the Police station. On receiving the report, the Sub-Inspector of Dhamdaha Police station arrived at the spot at about 2 P. M. on 13th. Seeing the Police Sub-Inspector arriving, the mob dispersed, taking away with them bulk of the paddy out and leaving some standing paddy crop behind. On the report of the Commissioner, the Sub-Inspector drew up a first information report, and, after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the petitioners and nineteen others, in all twenty five persons, for trial under Sections 144, 145, 363 and 379, Penal Code.

(3.) At the trial, the prosecution examined a large number of witnesses including the public officers like the commissioner and the constables. The defence of the petitioners was a denial of the occurrence. The accused did not examine any witnesses on their behalf. The trial Court acquitted nineteen-accused persons on the ground that they had not been properly identified as the persons who were concerned in the crime. He convicted the petitioners, and sentenced them as stated above. The lower appellate Court only converted the conviction of come of the petitioners under Section 144 to one under Section 143, Penal Code But that modification did not affect the substantive terms of imprisonment given to each one of these petitioners.