RAM PARVES AHIR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have been convicted of offences under Secs.147 and 338 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment in respect of the offence under Section 333 read with Section 149. No sentence has been passed on the charge of rioting.

(2.) The facts are that Sub-Inspector Raghubans Singh was instructed by the officer in charge of the Arrah Mufassil thana to proceed to villages Kusmha and Bhagwatipur, and in those villages to make house searches in connexion with a docoity case which was tinder investigation. Sub-Inspector Raghubans Singh, accompanied by an Assistant Sub-Inspector, arrived at village Kusmha and there searched certain houses, seized certain property and arrested two Ahirs. They then proceeded to Bhagwatipur where they entered the house of the appellant Ram Parvesh Ahir after having given search of their person to the women in the house, there being no males there at the time. They were accompanied by two search witnesses. In the house, Raghubans Singh seized a tin of mustard oil on which one of the women of the house was sitting and also an earthern pot of mustard oil.

(3.) The search was then interrupted by hostile cries outside the building. The search party thereupon emerged from the house and noticed a mob of 50 or 60 persons coming towards them armed with spears and lathis. Sub-Inspector Raghubans Singh deposed that he informed this mob that he was a police officer engaged in the discharge of his duties and that he asked them to disperse. As however they assumed a threatening attitude, he directed the Assistant Sub- Inspector to fire his gun in the air. This was done, but, apparently, had no effect on the attitude of the mob which continued to advance. Then the Sub-Inspector gave order for the gun to be fired at the mob. For some reason this was ineffective as the shot misfired. Finding themselves in danger from the mob the police party receded, pursued by the mob, which assaulted them and injured all of them. The injuries on the Sub-Inspector and the Assistant Sub-Inspector were very severe, and the Assistant Sub-Inspector was indeed rendered unconscious. It is alleged that the appellant took part in the occurrence. It may be mentioned that 31 persons were put on their trial, of whom 18 were acquitted, and the remaining 13, who are the appellants in this case were convicted.