DODRAJ MAHTON Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners Dodraj Mahto and Yusuf Mian were charged with offences under Section 144 I.P.C., while the other petitioners were charged under Section 143. There were also charges against all the petitioners under Secs.430 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, but they were acquitted of these charges. The petitioners were tried by a first class Magistrate of Bihar who, by his judgment and order dated the 22 December, 1933, sentenced Dodraj Mahto and Yusuf Mian to six months rigorous imprisonment each under Section 144, while the remaining petitioners were sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment each under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge of Patna has confirmed the convictions and sentences in appeal, and the petitioners have come up to this Court in revision.

(2.) As the charge under Section 430, Indian Penal Code, will be of some importance for the purposes of deciding this case I had better quote it in extenso: That you on or about the same day at the same place (meaning 20 August at Paimar river) committed mischief by cutting Kodwa bandh of Paimar river which has caused a diminution of the supply of water for agricultural purposes, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 430, etc. The common object of the rioting charges will be apparent from a perusal of the charges themselves. That you on or about 20 day August 1933, at Paimar river of village Nirpur, P.S. Silao, were members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit mischief by cutting the Kodwa bandh of Paimar river and thereby causing a diminution of the supply of water for agricultural purposes, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Secs.143 and 144, etc.

(3.) A comparison of these two charges will make it clear that the common object in the offences under Secs.143 and 144, Indian Penal Code, was the same as the offence described in the charge under Section 430 I.P.C. I shall revert to this later on after mentioning the prosecution case and the defence. The prosecution case is that there is a bandh known as Kodwa bandh usually made in the river Paimar on behalf of the landlords of village Mari for irrigation of their lands. Villages Nirpur and Jalalpur are on the east of the bandh and the village Saure is situated on the south of the bandh. The bandh was made last year on behalf of the landlords of village Mari and on the 20 August 1933 the river was rising and the water accumulating on account of the bandh. At about 1&Frac12; or 2 hours before sunset a mob of about 150 men armed with lathis, swords, garasas, bhalas and spades went to the bandh and cut it and looted the utensils, clothes and rice which were kept in a hut near the bandh for the use of the watchmen.