STATE Vs. RAMPRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Gaya under the provisions of Section 307, Criminal P. C.

(2.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge tried the four accused persons, Ramprasad Singh, Bachu Singh, Sitaram Hajam and Sidhu Ojha, on various charges. Three of the charges, namely, that under Section 326 read with Section 34, Penal Code, against three of the accused persons, the charge under Section 324, Penal Code, against Bachu Singh for causing hurt to one Munni Ram, and the charge under Section 323, Penal Code, against Ramprasad Singh, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge with the aid of assessors. The remaining charge under Section 460, Penal Code, was tried by a jury, the assessors acting as the jury in respect of the charge under Section 460, Penal Code. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty against all the four accused persons on the charge under Section 460, Penal Code. On the other charges the assessors were of the opinion that the accused persons were guilty of the charges brought against them. By his judgment dated 31-3-1952, the learned Additional Sessions Judge disagreed with the assessors in respect of the charges under Ss. 326/34, 324 and 323, Penal Code, and he recorded an order of acquittal on those charges. With regard to the charge under Section 460, Penal Code, the learned Additional Sessions Judge expressed his disagreement with the unanimous verdict of the jury and made a reference to the High Court under the provisions of Section 307, Criminal P. C. In his letter of reference the learned Additional Sessions Judge has stated: "My opinion, therefore, is that the jurors give a verdict entirely against the weight of the evidence and their verdict of guilty is not only perverse but is one which no reasonable body of men could have arrived at............It will result in miscarriage of justice if the verdict of the jurors on the charge under Section 460, Penal Code, is allowed to stand. The case is accordingly referred to the Hon'ble High Court for dnal orders." The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given two main reasons in support of the reference; the first reason is that, in the view of the learned Judge, Jadubansi Lal, one of the injured persons who subsequently died, could not have made a consistent and coherent statement to the Sub-Inspector of Police as was alleged to have been made in his 'fardbayan'; and the learned Judge further doubted if Munni Ram, Bimla Devi and Dakho Kuer, three other injured persons, had given out the names of the accused persons, either to the villagers who arrived soon after the occurrence or to the Sub-Inspector of Police near the bed of a river called Sakri; the second reason given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that the jury disregarded a direction in law given by him. The direction given by the learned Judge was in these terms: "So, even if you hold that the accused persons did take part in the assault and had entered the house at about midnight, you can only hold them guilty under Section 448, Penal Code, for committing house trespass." The learned Judge says that in spite of this direction, the jury have returned a verdict of guilty on the charge under Section 460, Penal Code.

(3.) Before I proceed to consider the evidence in this case in the light of the submissions made to us on behalf of the accused persons, it is necessary to state briefly the respective cases of the parties. ' The prosecution case was the following. Jadubansi Lal, now deceased, was the full brother of one Surajbansi (P. W. 6). There were two ladies in the house which these two brothers occupied: ' one was Dakho Kuer, mother of the two brothers, and the other was Bimla Devi, the wife of Surajbansi Lal. The two brothers were joint and lived in a house in village Dariyapur within the jurisdiction of Warisaliganj Police Station. Dariyapur was at a distance of about two or three miles from Warisaliganj. In October, 1950, Surajbansi Lal was elected a 'mukhia' of the Gram Pancha-yat constituted under the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The four accused persons are residents of the same village but of a different 'tola' known as the Pachhiyari Tola. Eachu Singh and Ramprasad Singh, two of the accused persons, are full brothers, being sons of one Mahabir Singh. In April 1951, Mahabir Singh wanted to erect a brick-kiln at the 'darwaza' of one Chamari Singh. The latter filed a petition before the Gram Panchayat. As 'mukhia' of the Gram Panchayat, Surajbansi Lal served a notice on Mahabir Singh not to erect a kiln. Mahabir Singh disregarded the notice and commenced building the kiln. Surajbansi Lal then informed the local police at Warisaliganj and Mahabir Singh was restrained from erecting the kiln. It is stated that Mahabir Singh disregarded the direction of the local police and continued the construction of the kiln. A case under Section 188, Penal Code, was then started against him. On the day of the occurrence which was the subject-matter of the present case, the case under Section 188, Penal Code, Was pending. On the night between the 7th and 8th August, 1951, Jadubansi Lal was sleeping on the outer verandah of the house. Surajbansi Lal was away at Warisaliganj that night. He is a Homoeopath and had-a dispensary at Warisaliganj where he slept that night. Munni Ram, (P. W. 7) was also sleeping on the outer verandah. The two ladies were sleeping inside the house. At about midnight it is stated that the accused persons came. to the house of Jadubansi Lal. Ramprassd, it was stated, was armed with a 'lathi'; the other three accused persons were armed with a 'pharse' each. They assaulted Jadubansi. Munni Ram, who remonstrated and went near Jadubansi to save him, was hit by Bachu Singh with his 'pharse'. Three of the accused persons, it is stated, went into the house and enquired, of the mother Defcho Kuer as to where Surajbansi was. Dakho Kuer said that Surajbansi was not in the house. The accused persons, it is stated, then asked for the Key, and the old lady said that she did not have the key with her. The three accused persons Eachu Singh, Sidhu Ojha and Sitaram Hajam, then assaulted the two ladles, namely, Dakho Kuer and Bimla Devi. After this assault the accused persons went away. No article was stolen from the house. The two ladies came out to the verandah and found that Jadubansi and Munni Ram were also assaulted, Jadubansi more severely than Munni Ram. A number of villagers had come on the hulla raised, and the prosecution case was that the names of the assailants were mentioned to them by Jadubansi Lal, Dakho Kuer and Munni Ram. One Lukhari Dusadh Chaukidar (P. W. 8), who was on round, also came to the place of hulla. He saw the injured persons and heard the names of the assailants. The injured persons were then put on 'khatias' or 'khatolis' and with a party of men they proceeded towards Warisaliganj where there were a dispensary as well as the 'thana'. On the way the party met the Sub-Inspector of Police (P. w. 9) who said that he was patrolling with an armed force that night and met the party of the injured when he was passing through the dry bed of river Sakri at about 1.30 A.M. The Sub-Inspector said that he questioned Jadubansi, and step by step he recorded the answers given in a 'fardbayan'. He also recorded the statements of the other three injured persons and prepared injury reports. He asked Lukhari Dusadh Chaukidar to take the injured to Wari-saliganj Dispensary and the 'fardbayan' to the Police Station. Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector of Police examined certain other persons and then at about 2.30 A.M. he reached the house of Jadubansi Lal in village Dariyapur. He held an investigation and arrested three of the accused persons, Ramprasad Singh, Sitaram Hajam and Sidhu Ojha, in their house in the Pachhiyari Tola at about 6 A.M. With the three arrested accused persons he came back to Warisaliganj Police Station at about noon. The injured persons were examined at Warisaliganj Dispensary by the doctor in charge, Bindeshwari Prasad Sharma, between the hours 3 A.M. to about 5 A.M. on 8-8-1951. Munni Ram had two injuries; Bimla Devi had as many as seven injuries; Dakho Kuer had four injuries; and Jadubansi Lal had as many as fifteen injuries, including several compound fractures of the skull. The condition of Jadubansi Lal was grave at the time and the doctor said that he was collapsing. The injured persons remained in Warisaliganj Dispensary, and some fourteen days later, on 22-8-1951, Jadubansi Lal died at about 8 P.M. A 'post mortem' examination was held on the dead body of Jadubansi Lal on 23-8-1951, by the doctor in charge of the Nawada Hospital. Besides certain external injuries which this doctor found, some of which were healed, the doctor found on dissection as follows: "On dissection, the skull bone was found cut across the whole length of injury No. 1 and the skull under injury No. 2 was found fractured. There was no injury to the brain. The heart was full of blood. The lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys were intensely congested. The bladder was empty. The stomach contained about 4 oz of fluid looking like rice water. A portion of small intestine was twisted. About 3 ft. af small intestine was congested and at spots presented the appearance of starting gangrene. The large intestine was empty. It appears that She deceased died due to this obstruction of tine small intestine. All the above injuries were ante mortem.......... Death of the deceased, in my opinion, was caused by intestinal obstruction After investigation the local police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons under rariaus sections of the Indian Penal Cade, including culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, and attempt to murder under Section 307, Penal Code. The learned Magistrate who enquired into the case committed the four accused persons on charges under Sections 326, 324, 323 and 469, Penal Code. The result of the trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge I have already stated at the beginning of this judgment.