TRAILOKYANATH DAS Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the jury, by a majority of 4 to 1, found all the appellants guilty under Section 143,I.P.C., and, by a majority of 3 to 2, they found the three Das appellants guilty under Section 379 read with Section 109, I. P.C., and they unanimously found all the appellants not guilty of the charges under Section 436 read with Section 109, I. P.C. The learned Judge accepting the majority verdict, sentenced all the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 143 and the Das appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each under Section 379/109,I.P.C., the sentences running concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case is briefly this; Jnanada, P. W. 10, purchased the rights of a tenant in respect of 82 bighas odd of paddy land, the landlords being the Dases. From the time of his purchase in 1920, Jnanada has been in possession through bhag tenants. At the time of the occurrence, the bhag tenant in possession was one Rakhal and it was he who had cultivated the land and grown the paddy. There was trouble going on between him and the landlords, who were of the accused party. On 23 November 1929, the Subdivisional Magistrate passed an order under Section 144, Criminal P.C., restraining the appellant Trailokya and others from exercising any act of possession on the land in question, but be-fore that order could be served, the occurrence complained of took place on 28 November 1929. On that date the Appellants and others, numbering about 150 men, variously armed, came upon the land when Rakhal and his men had start-t cutting the paddy. The accused party move away Rakhal and his men and forcible cut and removed the paddy. The accused party This operation lasted for about 7 or 8 days continuously. On the date of the occurence it is further alleged that the accused party looted Rakhal's house and burnt it down. On these alleged facts, the appellants were put upon their trial in respect of the offences above mentioned. The common object set out in the charge under Section 143 was to assert the supposed right of the accused by a show of criminal force and by driving away Rakhal from his house.

(3.) The defence case mainly was that the holding of Jnanada was sold in auction in execution of a rent decree in 1928 and the auction-purchaser took possession through Court on 19th September 1928, and that since then neither Jnanada nor any bhag tenant of his had been in possession.