LAWS(PVC)-1944-9-49

EMPEROR Vs. JAMUNA SINGH

Decided On September 05, 1944
EMPEROR Appellant
V/S
JAMUNA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Manbhum-Singhbhum for the confirmation of the sentence of death passed on Jarmma Singh, a sepoy in the Railway Protection Police Force at Purulia, aged 32, for the murder of his superior officer Jamadar Jeo Nandan Singh. There is also an appeal by the condemned man against his conviction. Before stating the facts it is desirable to describe the locality in which the alleged murder took place. The Railway Protection Police of Purulia is housed in barracks which consist of four main buildings. Two of these lie on the north side of a road which divides them from the remaining two buildings on the south side of the road. The southern end of the westernmost building on the south side of the road is used as a magazine. To the south of the eastern building on the south side of the road are the quarters of the Subedar.

(2.) On the evening of 23 .January 1944, the guard on the magazine consisted of Edmund Sanga who was in charge, Ram Baran, Muhammad Qayum, Kashi Nath Singh, and the appellant Jamuna Singh. At the time of the occurrence, which was at 7-30 P. M., Kashi Nath Singh was not actually present near the magazine as he had been permitted to go to the kitchen to have his evening meal. Sanga, Qayum and Ram Baran were in the verandah of the building in which the magazine is situated. Jamuna Singh was on sentry duty in front of the magazine, that is to say, his beat was on the western side of the magazine. Jamadar Jeo Nandan Singh accompanied by Havildar Basdeo Singh came along the road separating the northern block of barracks from the southern block to inspect a new sign board at the western end of that road. Having inspected the board, they were returning along the road. When they reached, a point directly north of the accused's beat, the latter challenged them and received the reply "dost" (friend). Thereupon the accused is said to have advanced towards them and to have shouted out "sala jamadar betichode," and at the same time to have fired two shots in quick succession, one of which hit Jamadar Jeo Nandan Singh in the chest. The Jamadar and the Havildar then ran along the road in a easterly direction for some distance, eventually turning southwards towards the quarters of the Subedar. In the meanwhile, the other members of the guard had run towards the accused. The latter, however, pointed his rifle at them and they threw themselves flat on to the verandah of the magazine. The accused then ran along the south side of the magazine. It would appear that his object in doing so was to intercept the Jamadar and the Havildar, for he fired two more shots from the south-eastern corner of the magazine. From there he went to the police station in the town, and at 8-15 the officer then in charge of the police station recorded a saneha containing a gist of the statement made by the appellant. In that statement he alleged that while he was on duty at 7-30 he noticed two men coming from the west, and that as they did not stop when he challenged them, he suspected that they were up to no good and fired four shots at them. The officer in charge of the police station took charge of the appellant's rifle and put him in the lockup. In the meanwhile, at 7-35 P.M. Muhammad Qayum, one of the members of the magazine guard, had hastened to the Government railway police station, which is within 200 yards of the place of occurrence, and made a statement to the officer in charge there, which is the first information in this case.

(3.) Muhammad Qayum is P.W. 1, and has deposed to the appellant challenging the Jamadar and Havildar and to their replying to the challenge and also to the fact of the apellant having then called out to the Jamadar in abusive language and firing two shots. Qayum says that after the second shot had been fired he and Sanga and Ram Baran Singh went towards the accused, and that, when the latter pointed his rifle at them, they threw themselves flat on the ground, and the accused went off in a southerly direction and fired two more shots. This account of the occurrence is also supported by Sanga (P.W. 2), who was in charge of the magazine guard. P.W. 3 is Basdeo Singh, Havildar. The account which he gives of the occurrence is similar to that given by witnesses 1 and 2. So also is the account given by Ram Baran Singh (P.W. 5). Kashi Nath Singh, the last member of the guard, was tendered by the prosecution, and in cross-examination deposed that he heard the accused's challenge and the abusive language which he used. The main facts are not in dispute. That the appellant did fire at and hit Jamadar Jeo Nandan Singh is admitted, but it is contended that he did this in execution of what he conceived to be his duty. Prom the arguments addressed to us it appears that there is an impression that a police constable on guard duty at a magazine or other public building is entitled to fire at a person who does not answer his challenge. No authority in support of this proposition is cited, and so far as I am aware, there is no justification for it. A person whose duty it is to guard a public building is in the same position as a person employed to guard a private building; that is to say it is his duty to protect the property of his employer, and he may take such steps for this purpose as the law permits. Section 97, Indian Penal Code, declares that every person has a right, subject to certain restrictions mentioned in Section 99, to defend the property of himself or any other person against any act which is an offence falling within the definition of theft, robbery, etc. Section 105 declares that the right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of a danger to the property commences, and Section 103 says that the right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in Section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the descriptions therein enumerated. Among the offences therein enumerated are theft, mischief and house-trespass. A person employed to guard the property of his employer, therefore, is protected by these provisions of the law, if he causes death in safeguarding his employer's property, when there is reason to apprehend that the person whose death has been caused was about to commit one of the offences mentioned in Section 103, or to attempt to commit one of those offences. The fact that the property to be guarded is public property does not extend the protection given to a guard. The facts of the present case do not disclose any reason for the appellant to have apprehended that the, Jamadar or Havildar was about to commit any offence against the magazine or its contents, or against the appellant himself. There was, therefore, no justification for him to shoot. Indeed, under the rules hung up in the magazine it was the duty of the sentry on duty to call out the officer of the guard, if circumstances should arise which, in his opinion, rendered it desirable to do so. There is no authority in those rules for him. to shoot at anybody. In my opinion, the offence which the appellant committed comes within the definition of murder.