AJODHIA PRASAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals against convictions for rioting in a fight which is said to have taken place between two rival factions at the village of Kundri in the Shahjahanpur District. There are in all ten appellants before us. There appears to have been a long standing quarrel between what in this Court has been called group A and group B. Group A in this Court consists of Ajudhia Prasad, Misri Lal, Chetram, Jwala Prasad and Jangi Lal: group B of Hardwari, Lal Bahadur, Bhagwandin, Gokul and Tika Ram. All of these people are the, appellants before us. The first four per-sons in group A are represented by Mr. Desanges. Jangi Lal was not represented but at our request Mr. Desanges was good enough to bear his interest in mind and has at the end discussed the case of Jangi Lal separately, with a view to assist him. Group B are represented by Mr. Jamini Mohan Banerji.

(2.) There is no doubt that for a long time there has been extremely bad blood between, these two parties represented by Ajudhia-Prasad as the ring leader on the one side and Hardwari on the other and their relatives and friends. There had been previous litigations and criminal proceedings, but on the 8 of April last there was an encounter which we are told is still the subject of a judicial enquiry, with the result that a man named Jagannath belonging to faction A was so injured that he died four days later. In our opinion that circumstance, the injury of Jagannath on the 8th, has an. important bearing on what took place on the 10th of April. We may pause for a moment to say that we are satisfied that both sides have told false-hoods about this matter, that group A have deliberately concocted a story as to Ajudhia Prasad being dragged from the neighbourhood of Dwarka's sitting room towards the threshing floor of Hardwari whilst on Hardwari's side there has been a deliberate fabrication of evidence putting the wounding of Jangi Lal as the act of a man named Puhup Ram. There are three or four witnesses who are independent in the sense that they are not relatives of any of the accused nor do they appear to be members of group A or group B, but with the solitary exception of a man named Tilok it is obvious on reading the evidence of the so- called independent witnesses that their sympathies can be plainly marked out as leaning either towards group A or group B. Tilok, however, holds the balance very evenly and we attach very considerable weight to his evidence and from his evidence and the evidence of the other witnesses in the case we are able to construct with sufficient certainty and safety what in fact in our belief took place. It should be understood that group A and group B in this village undoubtedly consisted of more persons than are before us to-day. We have no doubt that group A were vengeful and resentful because of the injuries to Jagannath which had been received by him two days before and that a number of persons adherent, to group A did gather at Dwarka's sitting room either about midday or in the early afternoon. News of this, gathering, we believe, was communicated to Hardwari and it may be that Hardwari on learning that a considerable number of men, certainly more than 10 and probably less then 20, had gathered at Dwarka's sitting room, felt it prudent in the circumstances to get his brothers and friends also to come to his threshing floor. But however that may be we have no doubt whatever that this fight arose from an advance made by group A party towards the threshing floor of Hardwari. It is common ground and agreed and we have been most precise and careful about this that the fight took place on a piece of waste ground belonging to Hardwari and at a distance of about 40 paces from the sitting room of Dwarka and about 30 paces or less from that of Hardwari. In other words the fight took place at a distance of 2/3 from the sitting room of Dwarka and 1/3 from the threshing floor of Hardwari. There is one point on which the evidence is perfectly clear and that it is that there was some preliminary abuse and a reference by Ajudhia Prasad to what had been done to Jagannath on the 8th and then before any lathi blow was struck, Jangi Lal fired a pistol. There is no doubt that the bullet from that pistol hit Shamacharan. On the evidence we accept what Tilok says, that thereupon Hardwari, who had come down from his threshing floor, turned back, grasped a pistol and fired it in the direction of and in fact hit Jangi. Thereupon a lathi fight became general. No more pistol shots were, fired on either side and in the result Pimmi Singh, an adherent of the A group, was so seriously injured in this fight that he died on the same day, the 10 of April. Shamacharan of B group, the man who was wounded by Jangi was trampled upon in the fight and received other severe injuries and died of pneumonia on the 19th of April

(3.) There are two principal questions which we must settle at the outset. The first is who were the participants in this fight who are proved by the evidence beyond any reasonable doubt to have been engaged in it; secondly are there any circumstances to exonerate any body either in group A or group B individually or collectively?