SAWANTA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a conviction under Section 201, I.P.C. According to the prosecution evidence there was enmity between the deceased Zalim, who was an occupancy tenant, and Moharman and others, zamindars, as well as Sawanta, a partner of Zalim in the tenancy. Zalim had complained to the Deputy Collector that the Kamindar had realized rents but had not given the receipts for them, and a case under the Tenancy Act was registered against Moharman. It is alleged that there was some settlement, and receipts were given to Sawanta by the zamindars, but Sawanta colluded with them and returned the receipts, and then the crops of Zalim were again attached. A report was made by Sawanta against Zalim, who was arrested and kept in the thana for the night, and was let off the next morning. Zalim then filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate against the zamindars, Sawanta, as well as the local police. His allegation was that a bribe had been demanded from him by the Sub-Inspector. Nonbailable warrants against the zamindars and Sawanta were issued by the Magistrate. Though the Sub- Inspector was in the village on 20 April 1930, he did not arrest the accused before the 22nd. The accused were subsequently let off on bail,

(2.) Indarjit, son of Zalim, deposed that Moharman and others wanted to compromise the case and had come to his father's house, but he refused to do, so; that next day when he returned, he was informed by his mother that Sawanta had taken his father to the zamindar's house, and when Indarjit went there he found the door closed. Zalim was not found during the day, although search was made for him. After sunset it is alleged that Narayan and Bhika were going along when they saw Sawanta and Narsinghbhan, the two appellants, carrying a heavy bundle with them. When questioned, Sawanta and Narsinghbhan threw down the bundle and ran away. An alarm was raised, and many people arrived on the scene, and when the bundle was opened, the dead body of Zalim was discovered in it. It had numerous marks of injuries on it.

(3.) According to Indarjit, he went to Tikam Singh, the mukhia, who is a relation of Moharman, and reported the matter to him, but no notice appears to have been taken by the mukhia. Deojit was sent next day to the thana to make a report which he did. The police made an investigation, and the matter dragged on for a number of months and nothing was done. On 23 August 1930, a complaint was filed by Indarjit against Sawanta, Narsinghbhan, as well as the three zamindars. Mt. Sundar, the wife of Zalim, stated that Sawanta and Narsinghbhan came on the next day and had taken her husband away with them, but he did not return. The evidence of Narayan and Bhikam was that they saw Sawanta and Narsinghbhan, accused, carrying a bundle on their shoulders by means of lathis, and when they were questioned they threw it down and ran away. Ramlal deposes that an alarm was raised by Narayan and Bhikam that the two accused had thrown down something, and when he, along with other villagers, went to the place, they discovered the dead body of Zalim. The other three accused were discharged by the committing Magistrate, but Sawanta and Narsinghbhan were committed to the Sessions Court. The learned Judge added a charge under Section 201, I.P.C. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to connect the two accused with the murder of Zalim, and has accordingly acquitted them of that charge. He has found them guilty under Section 201, and has- sentenced them to three years rigorous imprisonment each.