JAGDISH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the sentences and convictions of seven appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge of Etawah. The appellants were charged under Section 436, Indian Penal Code, and under Rule 35, Sub-rule (4), Defence of India Rules, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. They were all, with the exception of appellant Munshi Singh, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 436, Indian Penal Code, one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, and seven years rigorous imprisonment under Rule 35, Sub-rule (4), Defence of India Rules, and in conjunction with the last sentence the learned Additional Sessions Judge imposed a fine of Ra. 100. In the case of the appellant Munshi Singh the sentences under Section 436, Indian Penal Code, and under Rule 35, Sub-rule (4), Defence of India Rules, are two years less. In the cases of Jagdish and Puttu Singh there are also sentences of whipping. The case is known as the Basrehar Canal Kothi Burning Case. The facts may be shortly set out. It happened during the night of 12 September 1942, at the tail end of the August disturbances, at or shortly after midnight. There is a small canal inspection house at or near Basrehar village, which is occupied for the purpose of administering and guarding the canal and its appurtenances in that neighbourhood. Basrehar village is itself four miles from the nearest police-station at Chaubia. On this particular night, we know that there were in the canal bungalow some five persons : the bungalow mali, whose name was Ganesh, the mail runner called Basanta, a Beldar or labourer called Parmu and two members of the patrol, Akbar Ali and Sami Ullah. They were asleep; Parmu and Basanta, on the eastern verandah of the bungalow, Ganesh on the western verandah and Sami Ullah and Akbar Ali in the stables, which apparently served not only as stables but also as the quarters of the men of the patrol. These stables were at a short distance to the southeast of the bungalow and between the bungalow and the stables there was a small mango grove and a road.

(2.) At or shortly after midnight a party of men, variously described as between 10 and 25 in number, attacked the place by breaking open the doors and eventually burnt a good deal of the contents and did damage which has been assessed at something like Rs. 1,800. In addition to this, a length of telegraph wire was dragged down from the telegraph poles near the bungalow and thrown down a well. Whoever may have done it, there is no doubt that this was a deliberately planned and executed raid in this particular piece of Government property. It is in respect of this affair that the seven appellants have been tried and sentenced. I should like to say at once that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as appears from the record, to have conducted the trial with fairness and with great care and it is right to say that, notwithstanding that my own view does not wholly agree with his. The evidence against the appellants really goes by stages and corresponds with the events as they are set out in the prosecution story. It is said that the assault on the canal bungalow had been planned at the instigation of the Congress agitators some days earlier. If the prosecution story of what happened is right, then on 10 September there was a meeting between the appellants Jagdish and Puttu Singh, together with another man who has avoided trial by absconding called Arjun Singh, at the house of the appellant Jagdish at Basrehar. This is said to have taken place at about 4 o clock in the afternoon. It is suggested that Arjun Singh then came and upbraided Jagdish and Puttu Singh far having done very little towards helping the disturbances and in the sabotage of Government property then going on. The prosecution has endeavoured to establish this meeting by the evidence of the two witnesses, namely, Chiddu, P.W. 27 and Mahadeo, P.W. 26.

(3.) Thereafter the next event is said to have been a meeting on the same day - which was a Thursday - on a chabutra under a banyan tree in the village. At this meeting - assuming it took place - there are said to have been present all the appellants as well as one or two others, including Arjun Singh mentioned above and also two men - Bijai Singh and Brahmadin - who so frequently became approvers in the case. This meeting was again adjourned and they agreed to meet later that same evening in the house of the appellant, Nawab Singh. Two days later on Sunday night, no doubt as a result of what had been decided upon on Thursday, a party, including the appellants and the approvers, is said again to have assembled in Nawab Singh's house armed with the instruments of dacoity and it is from there that they are alleged to have set out for the assault on the canal bungalow. There were, however, two incidents on the way. They first reached a village, Bankati, and there, if the evidence is to be believed, the appellant, Nawab Singh, was recognised and accosted by an inhabitant of the place called Bala Ram who happened to be at the door of his cow-shed. This Bala Ram has given evidence of seeing, and speaking to, the appellant Nawab Singh and also of the fact that there were a number of other people with Nawab Singh in the background, although owing to the darkness of the night he does not claim to have actually seen them or to have recognised them. He merely heard them. That evidence is intended to prove the sequence of events, which took place as the expedition proceeded.