RAHAT HUSAIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal appeal by 30 appellants, of whom Nos. 1, 10 to 13 and 26, that is, 6 persons, have been sentenced to transportation for life under Sections 302 and 149, Indian Penal Code, and have also been sentenced, in the case of No. 1 and Nos. 10 to 13, to two years rigorous imprisonment, under Section 395, Penal Code, and in the case of No. 26 to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, the sentences under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, being concurrent with the life sentences. One other appellant, No. 22, has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 398, Indian Penal Code, and the remaining accused have all been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under that section. The case has had a curious history. The occurrence in question took place on 11 October 1930, in a village called Ganeshpur, some 6 miles from Basti town. This village is inhabited partly by Brahman Chaubes, and the complainant, Deotadin Chau-be, lives in Mohalla Chaube Tola. The zamindars are three Mahomedans, Ghulam Mohammad and his brother, Ghu-lam Husain, who is a member of the Legislative Council and a Khan Bahadur, and another zamindar Mohammad Raza. Admittedly, the complainant has not been on good terms with the zamindars. On the day in question the case of the complainant is that certain peons of the zamindar, Ghulam Mohammad, came to his house and asked him to work with his plough for the zamindar on that day without wages as "begar." The complainant says that he had never rendered this free service previously and he objected to rendering the service on the day in question, and he said he would go the next day. The peons objected and a fight ensued between the complainant and these peons and they began to beat him, and he snatched a stick from one of them and struck the peon and ran off and threw stones at them. One of the peons, Tajammul, said: "Go and inform our master that the peon has been struck and ask him for orders."

(2.) The party of the peons then went away. Within an hour Ghulam Mohammad and Md. Raza, the zamindars, came to the door of the complainant with about 100 persons, their servants and their tenants, with the intention of punishing the complainant for assaulting the peon. The complainant defended himself with a lathi, and his uncle, Ramkhelawan, who also had a lathi, helped him. The zamindars are stated to have attacked Ramkhelawan, and the accused, appellants Nos. 1, 10 to 13 and 26, struct Ramkhelawan with lathis, and Ramkhelawan fell down, apparently dead. All the party of the zamindars then began to loot the house of the complainant and took ornaments from the complainant's mother and took everything out of the house. This occurrence took place at 9 or 10 a. m., on 11 October 1930, and the complainant states that the chaukidar, Budh-ram asked him to make a report at the kotwali, and that he asked the chaukidar to make a report because he himself was injured. He was also informed that the zamindars had guarded the ferries of the river to prevent any man of the complainant's party crossing to make a report. The father of the complainant, Tulsiram,, was present in basti on the day in question, and he received information that this assault had taken place. He states that he told a witness. Rai Bahadur Sarju Prasad, a Special Magistrate, and this witness told him to go to the Sub- Divisional Officer, who told him to go to the kotwal, that he went to the kotwali and found that the kotwal was absent but the head-oonstable was present, and also the manager of the zamindar was present and the chaukidar of the village, Budh-ram. He told the story to the head-constable and asked him to write a report, and the head-constable said that the chaukidar had come and he would write a report. Tulsiram sat down, and he states that the two accused Dina and Ghani arrived and went to the head-constable. He again asked the head-constable to write a report, and the head-constable again put him off saying that the report would be written when the kotwal would come. Later he was informed by another chaukidar that the report of the accused, Dina, was beingrecorded in the kotwali, and the report of Tulsiram was not being recorded. Finding it impossible to get his report recorded in the kotwali, Tulsiram went to a vakil, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad, and told him the facts and asked him to write out telegrams to the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. This was done, and these telegrams were sent, and one of these telegrams is reproduced at p. 55. It is dated 11th October at 2 p. m., and is as follows: Superintendent of Police: Basti, Ghulam Muhammad with men or Ghulam Husain looted my house and injured seriously my brother Ramkhelawan and others. Could not report: as police siding with them, Tulsiram.

(3.) learned Counsel has argued that this action of Tulsiram is unnatural, but we do not think it at all unnatural, and it is supported by the evidence of B. Sarju Prasad. Meanwhile the report of the two accused, Dina and Ghani, was recorded in the thana under Secs.323, 504 506, Indian Penal Code, after 1 p. m. That report states that the the party of the peons went to the house of the complainant, Deotadin, and that Bhawanibhik and Khelawan were sitting there, and they asked these three persons cither to pay their rent or go to the zamindar's house to make a statement, and they refused to do cither, and they abused the peons. The peons replied with abuse, and the other party began to beat them and said they would kill them if they saw them again. It is clear that this account is incomplete and that it stops at a certain state in the proceedings and does not tell us what eventually happened. Now Ramkhelawan died of his injuries on the night of 11th October and it therefore became necessary for some action to be taken. The chaukidar was again sent to the thana on 12 October, and he made a report after 8 O clock against Dina, Ghani and Tajammul, peons of the zamindar Ghulam Mohammad. This report states that the peons demanded free service of Deotadin with his plough, and he refused to give it, and a fight took place between Deotadin and his brother Rampher, on one side, and Dina and Ghani, on the other. Dina and Ghani went back to the zamindar's house and came with a certain number of men, who are mentioned, including the appellants Nos. 1, 12 and 26, and Ramkhelawan, who was a very old man, and present, and they asked him to say where Deotadin and Rampher were and he did not tell. Thereupon, Dina, appellant No. 11, Ghani, appellant No. 10,. and Tajammul, appellant No. 26, began to beat Ramkhelawan with their fists and kicked him and dragged him to the door of Muttra and left him there. Khelawan's forehead was fractured and bled. Then on the morning of the 12 the chaukidar heard from Tulsiram's wife that-Khelawan was dead.