STATE Vs. BANWARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have to deal with a reference under Section 307, Cr. P. C. made by the learned Seas. J., Patna, & also with an appeal by such of the accused as were convicted by the jury & in regard to whom the learned Judge accepted the verdict. The persons who are the subject-matter of the reference are Banwari Singh, Ram Naresh & Shyam Dutt Singh. The verdict of the jury was in every case a majority verdict of four to three. In the case of Banwari Singh, the jury found him guilty under Section 148 & 324, Penal Code. The Judge thinks that the verdict was right under Section 148, but wrong under Section 324. In the ease of Earn Naresh Singh, the jury also found him guilty under Section 148 & 324 but the learned. Judge thinks that there was no sufficient evidence of identification, & accordingly be should have been acquitted altogether. In the case of the third man, Shyam Dutt 8ingh, the jury found him guilty only under Section 148, but for lack of satisfactory identification the Judge wants him also acquitted altogether.

(2.) The applts. are Awadhbehari Singh, Ramjatan Singh & Ramanuj Singh. Awadh Bihari was found guilty by the jury under Section 147, & the Judge, accepting that verdict, has convicted him & sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment. The same applies to Ramanuj. In the case of Ramjatan, the verdict of the jury was guilty under Section 3. 148 & 324. The Judge, accepting, it has convicted under both sections, & sentenced him under Section 148, to three years' rigorous imprisonment, & imposed no separate sentence under Section 324.

(3.) The case arose out of an occurrence which took place on 19-8-1948, at about 9 A. M. in village Koraitha situated three quarters of a mile from the Bikram Police station, & the trouble arose over the cultivation of plot No. 1126 of the village. This was claimed by both parties, Akura Singh (P. W. 1) claiming it by a deed of gift from one Dila Kuer. The prosecution party examined several witnesses to prove their possession of the plot & also put in the judgment of a Munsif. It appears that some of the plots of Dila Kuer, though not 1126, had been acquired by the Govt. in connection with Bikram Aerodreme, & the compensation had been awarded to Akura Singh as donee from Dila Kuer. The accused Awadhbihari filed a suit claiming half the compensation on the ground of the record of rights which showed the joint possession, half & half, of Dila Kuer and Suraj in 1911, & he claimed a half share through Suraj Singh & subsequent partition. This suit had failed, & been dismissed. It was also established that some months before the occurrence there had been an order under Section 144, Cr. P. C., against Awadhbihari.