HIRA SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are twenty five appellants in this case. The first two, Hira Singh and Mahipat, have been convicted under Section 302, read with Section 149, Penal Code, and have been sentenced to death. They have also been convicted under Section 147 and sentenced to eighteen months rigorous imprisonment, with the direction that, if the death sentences are not confirmed, the sentences under Section 147 would run concurrently with the sentences passed by the High Court on these men under Section 302. Appellants 4, 5 and 6, Gorey Lal, Ram Charan and Chhadami, have also been convicted under the same sections as appellants 1 and 2, but they have been sentenced to transportation for life under Section 302/149 and the sentence under Section 147 passed on them is the same as that passed on appellants 1 and 2. Appellants 7 to 25-Zulman, Har Charan, Dulla Ahir, Gurbila, Kamla, Rati Ram, Pearey Lal, Ganga Prasad, Pancha, Munnun, Charna, Dhooram, Balloo, Ghasita, Sabdal, Tunda, Paragi Lal, Ram Prasad and Chatura - have been convicted under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, and each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months. Appellant 3, Kalka Prasad, had been charged as an abettor of both the offences of murder and rioting. He has been acquitted by the Court below of the offence under Section 302/109, but has been convicted under Section 147/109 and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to a fine of Rs. 5000 and has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months in case of default in payment of the fine. Along with the appellants, there were nine other accused. One of them, Ramdin, died during the pendency of the commitment proceedings in the Magistrate's Court, and eight - Dalla Chamar, Bharosa, Birjis Qadar, Janki, Mohim Singh, Mahangwa, Laljwa and Gokul Prasad - have teen acquitted.

(2.) The incident out of which this prosecution arose is alleged to have occurred at a village called Chauka, in the district of Hamirpur, about 4 o clock in the afternoon of 3 January 1943, and the man who was killed was one Ram Singh. This village is situated at a distance of 80-90 miles from Hamirpur. It is necessary to state certain facts which form the background of this incident and about which there is no controversy. It appears that there is a small Indian State, called Alipura, whose territories adjoin parts of the district of Hamirpur. It is one of the group of States for which there is a Political Agent stationed at Nowgong. The capital town of this State is also called Alipura and lies at a distance of 7-8 miles from Chauka. This village, Chauka, is surrounded on all sides by villages belonging to the Ruler of Alipura State. The names of these villages are Ladra, Harpalpur, Galan and Pahari. The deceased, Ram Singh, was a resident of Ladra and has been spoken of as a Jagirdar of the Alipura State. Appellant 3, Kalka Prasad, is a substantial zamindar and cultivator and owns a considerable share in the zamindari of village Chauka, besides other villages. He has at Chauka a dera (collection house) and another building, called Bhandar Khana, which is at a distance of a few paces from the dera. He used at one time to reside at Harpalpur - one of the villages belonging to the Ruler of Alipura State and adjoining Chauka - but had, for reasons presently to be stated, to give up his residence there and to go and reside at Mau Ranipur in the district of Jhansi in or about October 1941. There has for some time past been considerable ill-feeling between the Alipura State and Kalka Prasad which had its origin in a rivalry between the two with regard to the acquisition of further zamindari. One Anant Singh, who is said to have once been a resident of Chauka and is now residing at village Pahari, executed in September 1941 a sale deed in respect of a fractional zamindari share in village Chauka in favour of Kalka Prasad. It is alleged that Alipura State was desirous of acquiring this share and, with that object in view, instigated the parents of Anant Singh to challenge the sale deed and advanced money for financing the litigation. A sum of Rs. 2000 was advanced by the Ruler of Alipura State to Anant Singh's father, Baldeo Singh, on a mortgage executed by Baldeo Singh in favour of the Ruler's son, Kunwar Vidurji. As is usual, the preliminary skirmish took place in the revenue Court where an objection was filed by Anant Singh's mother against Kalka Prasad's application for mutation. The objection, however, was rejected and the application for mutation-was granted. Anant Singh's mother, thereupon, filed a suit in the civil Court on behalf of Anant Singh, alleging him to be a minor and naming herself as his next friend, for the cancellation of the sale deed. It was alleged by the prosecution that the deceased Ram Singh, being a Jagirdar of Alipura State, was naturally siding with it and that he not only refused to pay rent himself to Kalka Prasad but also persuaded other tenants not to pay their rents to. Kalka Prasad but to continue to pay to Anant Singh and his father, Baldeo Singh.

(3.) On 16 July 1942, a complaint was filed in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Mahoba by Thakur Prasad, a Mukhtar-i-Am of Kalka Prasad, under Secs.147, 426, 447 and 604, Indian Penal Code, against 13 men, one of whom was the deceased Ram Singh. It is further alleged that, somewhere about this time, Ram Singh caught hold of Thakur Das and forcibly took him to his village Ladra, but that Ram Singh's father, Sheoraj Singh, intervened and persuaded Ram Singh to let Thakur Das go on the latter's promising that he would not take the matter to Court, but Thakur Das did file a complaint against Ram Singh which wag, pending at the time of the present occurrence; On 14 August 1942, Kalka Prasad sent an application to the District Magistrate of Hamirpur in which he gave a history of the disputes between him and the Alipura State and gave details of various actions on the part of various officials of the State which, according to him, amounted to high-handedness and oppression. This application is Ex. P-56 and is printed at pp. 14-17 of our paper book. It was alleged in para. 20 of this application that the applicant had been "practically deprived of all the control over his landed property at Chanka," that Kashipur people had also turned hostile, that there was "an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he would be killed if he would make an attempt to reach any of those villages," and that his business at Harpalpur had also to be entirely closed. In para. 9 of the application it was alleged that the petitioner, apprehending danger to his life and risk to his property, left Harpalpur and village Chauka, which was the permanent abode of the petitioner, with bag and baggage and settled at Mau in October last.