JAMADAR SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The five appellants and two others were tried by a jury in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge of Patna on charges of rioting and murder committed in prosecution of the common object of the rioters. The common objects alleged in the charge were to assault Puran Singh and Rajballam Singh and to enforce a supposed right to plots Nos. 1224 and 1225 by cutting the masuri crop standing on them. The jury unanimously acquitted two of the accused persons and unanimously found the appellant, Jamadar Singh, guilty under Section 326, Kamla Singh under Section 324, Hari Singh under Section 326 and Pardip Singh under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. By a majority of 8 to 1 they found Jamadar Singh, Hari Singh and Kamla Singh guilty under Section 148; Hari Singh, Kamla Singh, Pardip Singh and Jhonti Singh guilty under Section 326 read with Section 149 and Pardip Singh and Jhonti Singh guilty under Section 147. The learned Judge accepted the jury's verdict and sentenced Jamadar Singh to six year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 326, Pardip Singh to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 and to two years under Section 326 read with Section 149. Jhonti Singh was sentenced to two years under Section 326 read with Section 149, Kamla to three years under Section 326 road with Section 149 and to three years under Section 324. Hari Singh was sentenced to four years under Section 326 read with Section 149 and also under Section 326 and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment. Where more than one sentence was imposed the sentences were directed to run concurrently and no sentences were imposed in respect of the offences under Secs.147 and 148, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The occurrence which gave rise to the prosecution was a dispute between the appellants and the prosecution party with respect to plots Nos. 1224 and 1225 in village Akauna, tauzi No. 337. The fathers of Puran Singh (P.W. 1) and Rajballam Singh (deceased) had a 1 anna 6 dams odd proprietary share in this tauzi. Their share included bakasht and raiyati lands. The two plots in dispute, formed part of this bakasht land. In 1920, the bakasht land was given in ijara to one Kewal Kishun Singh in consideration of a loan of Rs. 2953. At the same time the proprietary interest was given as security for another loan for Rs. 1000 for which a simple mortgage was executed. In 1933, the mortgagee sued on the simple mortgage and obtained a decree in 1935, which was made absolute in 1938. The decree was passed ex parte as against the mortgagors and on contest against other members of the mortgagors family. Puran Singh and Rajballam Singh applied to set aside the ex parte decree but their application was disallowed. The mortgaged property was put up for sale and purchased by the mortgagee, Kewal Kishun Singh, and possession was in due course delivered to him.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that despite these transactions and the execution sale the mortgagors remained in possession of the bakasht lands as bataidars of Kewal Kishun Singh. The case of the appellants, on the other hand, is that from time to time the two plots in dispute were settled with them as bataidars and that in 1939 Kewal Kishun Singh executed a dawami bandobasti patta in favour of the appellant Pardip Singh under which he obtained possession. Such being the nature of the dispute between the parties, on 6 February 1941, Pardip Singh reported at the police station that Puran Singh and others were interfering with his harvesting of the masuri crop standing on plots Nos. 1224 and 1225. On receipt of this information the Assistant Sub-Inspector, who was in charge of the police station at the time, proceeded to the village with two constables and two chaukidars. When this party arrived at Akauna they found the appellants and their helpers in the course of reaping the crop standing on the two plots. The Assistant Sub-Inspector says that he ordered them to stop cutting the crop and this order was obeyed. He then sent one of the chaukidars, Loknath, to fetch Puran Singh and Rajballam Singh. What happened thereafter is in dispute between the parties. According to the prosecution Puran Singh and Rajballam Singh arrived at the fields unarmed and were immediately attacked by the appellants with bhallas and garasas. A crowd of villagers numbering 40 or 50 then attacked the appellants.