PORESH NATH SIRCAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the accused should not be get aside.

(2.) The petitioners are three out of seven accused persons tried for and convicted of the offence of rioting, under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Magura.

(3.) The facts are that some time ago there was a Section 145 case about the possession of chur Attock between Asutosh Goswami on the one side and some of the accused on the other. The complainant Arshad supported his landlord. The Magistrate found chur Attock to be in the possession of the accused, but directed that Arshad should continue in possession of his homestead, which he was found to have occupied for more than two months before the date of the institution of the Section 145 case. Arshad, according to the Subdivisional Magistrate of Magura, began to. encroach upon the land adjoining his homestead. He filled up a ditch between his bari and that of his brother Abed, and began to occupy Abed's huts. This enraged the accused who, on the 8 February last, came to the place of occurrence with a large body of armed men, beat Arshad and his neighbours Jan Mahomed and Mehar, and pulled down the huts. Mehar was speared in the abdomen. His body was removed by the rioters. He has never been seen or heard of since. A head was subsequently found, but it could not be identified to be his.