MOSADDI RAI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur has convicted the seven appellants Mosaddi Rai (not Ahir as in the heading to his judgment), aged fifty-four, Sheogobind Rai aged forty-five, both Rajputs of Imadpur and sometimes designated "Singh," and five Ahirs, namely, Baijnath Raut (25), son of Dharichan Raut of Pakri and Kunkun (25), Hoti (30), Husaini (36) and Ramraj (40) of Bangra on charges under Section 302, I.P.C., and sentenced them to transportation for life. He also convicted under Section 323, but awarded no further sentence. The four assessors found that the charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 was established except in the case of Baijnath whom they considered to be not guilty.

(2.) Two other persons were tried with the appellants, namely, Dharichan (45) father of Baijnath and Parao (40), son of Girdhari Raut of Bangra, but they were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge in agreement with the assessors as regards Dharichan but in disagreement as regards Parao. The persons convicted have preferred the present appeal. When the appeal was opened the Division Bench (Courtney-Terrell, C.J. and Fazl Ali, J.) issued a rule upon the appellants to show cause why the sentence passed upon them should not be enhanced, that is to say, why the capital sentence should not be passed. That is the reason why, though the capital sentence is in question the appeal has been heard on a typed instead of a printed paper-book.

(3.) Mr. S. Sinha appeared on behalf of Mosaddi Rai, Mr. S.N. Sahai for Baijnath and Mr. Sahi for the other appellants. Mr. Sinha began by stating that he did not feel justified in contesting the conviction of his client and contented himself with showing cause against enhancement of the sentence. The other advocates have both assailed the convictions and opposed the rule for enhancement of sentence. (After stating the cases of the prosecution and the defence and the findings of the Sessions Judge, the judgment continued). Mr. Sinha accepted the conviction of Mosaddi Rai as correct. But this hardly relieves the Court of the necessity of arriving at its own conclusion upon the evidence against him particularly as Mr. Sahai on behalf of Sheogobind and the four Ahirs of Bangra contends that none of the persons who were at Muzaffarpur were concerned. (After disposing of some of the contentions of counsel on either side, the judgment proceeded).