STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SRILAL KEJRIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State Government from an order of acquittal of the respondents who were put on trial in the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Bhagalpur on charges of criminal conspiracy, arson and abetment of arson. All the respondents were charged under Sections 120B/436 and 430/109, of the Indian Penal Code. Srilal Kejriwal, respondent No. 1, Mahadeo Lal Santhalia, respondent No. 2, his maternal uncle, and Bhola Mander, respondent No. 4, his motor driver, were further charged under Section 436/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Bhola Singh, one of the accused persons, died sometime after the commitment proceedings.

(2.) The occurrence which gave rise to the prosecution took place at about midnight between the 24th and 25th June, 1953, at Tilkamanjhi, a quarter in the town of Bhagalpur. There was a serious explosion with fire as a result of which the double-storeyed godown building of a mill, known as the Bhagwati Hosiery Mill, was completely blown up and three persons, viz.(1) Bhagwati Ram Kejriwal, the father of respondent No. 1 Srilal, and one of the Directors of the Mill, (2) Shivaram Sharma, an employee of a firm, known as Gopalrai Ramchandra, and (3) Nagendra Nath Das, a mistri attached to the Hosiery Mill, were killed. Besides the loss of lives and the building a huge quantity of hosiery goods, Cotton piece goods and cotton yarn were destroyed by fire. The prosecution case is that the goods in the godown which were insured had been deliberately set on fire in pursuance of a conspiracy with the intention of claiming against the insurance companies concerned. The respondent, the three victims and certain other persons are said to have been parties to this conspiracy.

(3.) It is necessary to set out the following pedigree : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_459_AIR(PAT)_1960Html1.htm</FRM> The branch of Bhagwati is separate from that of Ganpat. According to the prosecution, Bhagwati and his sons are joint and own two firms at Bhagalpur, one known as Gopalrai Ramchandra dealing in cotton piece goods and the other known as Atmaram Deokinandan dealing in cotton yarn. Respondent Srilal, however, asserted at the trial that Bhagwati and his song including himself were separate from one another. This question of jointness or separation is material in this case only in so far as it throws some light on the question of motive for the crime.