SUBEDAR SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment on a charge of rioting Petitioner I has been further convicted for causing grievous hurt. The case arose out of a dispute regarding land in Mauza Kubatpur. The dispute regarding this land has persisted for a considerable number of years. There has been litigation about it in the Civil Criminal and Revenue Courts; and in every instance the matter has been decided in favour of the petitioners. In the present case the prosecution alleged that at 8 a.m. on 2 July, 1932. the petitioners commenced to plough the plot in dispute and that they were armed with pharsas, bhalas and lathis and were prepared to fight if attacked.

(2.) It is said that the complainant protested against the ploughing of the field by the accused persons and that petitioner 1 then ordered his companions to beat the complainant's party with the result that there was then a fight between the petitioners and the complainant's party. The defence version of the occurrence was that the complainant's party attacked the petitioners party while the latter was engaged in ploughing the land and the petitioners merely acted in self- defence On a review of the evidence relating to the question of possession, the lower appellate Court came to the finding that: in the eye of the law the title and possession of Subedar Singh, petitioner 1, were perfect," but that "both parties went to the field armed with sharp cutting weapons, fully prepared for the fight, to take possession or retain possession of the land in dispute.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the finding that Subedar Singh was in possession the accused should have been acquitted. The learned Assistant Advocate however argues that the finding of the Court below amounts only to a finding that Subedar Singh was entitled to possession and not that he had actuAlly obtained possession. I am unable to construe the finding of the lower appellate Court, in this way. It seems clear to me that, the lower appellate Court has found as a fact that Subedar Singh was in possession of the disputed land. It is next contended that even if he were in possession of the disputed land, he was not entitled to take an armed mob for the purpose of protecting that possession, and reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Ghyasuddin Ahmad V/s. King-Emperor AIR 1932 Pat. 215. That case, however, does not support the learned Assistant Government Advocate's contention.