MAHANARAIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Mahanarain, who is a resident of village Dadraul in the district of Shahjahanpur, has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to death. The charge against the appellant was that he on 7th February 1944, early in the afternoon, committed the murder of one Malkhan - who was also a resident of village Dadraul - by stabbing him with a knife at Paintapur in the Har - which apparently means a field in which no crops arc standing or land which is used for grazing cattle-.and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. Mahanarain has appealed against his conviction and the sentence of death passed on him and the record has also been submitted to this Court for the confirmation of the death sentence. As has been indicated above, the appellant Mahanarain as well as the deceased Malkhan were residents of village Dadraul. Paintapur is a hamlet of Dadraul and is situated to the east of that village. It appears from the evidence that there is a sugar factory at Rosa, which is situated at a distance of three miles from Dadraul, and that there is what is called the Rosa Co-operative Development Union which is connected with the factory. The "gate supervisor" (Mohammad Usman Ghaznavi) and the Assistant Secretary (A.N. Chishti) of the Union were examined by the defence. It further appears that this Union has organised a system by which the various cultivators of sugar-cane are enabled to bring to the factory their sugar- cane on specified days and at specified times. The object of this system appears to be to eliminate confusion and waste of time and, possibly, also corruption which are likely to result if a large number of cultivators assemble at one and the same time, each clamouring for his sugar-cane to be weighed and taken delivery of. For this purpose the Union arranges to have "slips" distributed to the various cultivators by which the date and the time are fixed for each cultivator to bring in his sugar-cane. These slips are distributed by men employed by the Union who are called "distributors." The appellant Mahanarain was one of such distributors, but Dadraul was not in his circle. It was in the circle of one Bulaqi Ram, who is also a witness for the defence. The deceased Malkhan, and his brother, Gokul, are stated to have been growers of sugarcane. So far as the incident which was the basis of this prosecution was concerned, the case of the prosecution was as follows : It was alleged that on the morning of the day in question, viz., Monday, 7 February 1944, the deceased had taken his cattle to Paintapur to graze them; that he was grazing them at a spot situated at a short distance to the west of a sugarcane field of his own; that to the south of this field of his lay a vacant field of one Mehi Kisan, and that one Lallu Bhurji, was also grazing his cattle at the same place, at a distance of a few paces from the place where the deceased was. It was next alleged that shortly after midday the appellant came to that place on a bicycle and, seeing the deceased, called out to him and told him that someone was plucking his (deceased s) sugar-cane; that thereupon the deceased went to his sugar-cane field; that the appellant also went in the same direction; that shortly afterwards Lallu Bhurji and three other men Lochan, his brother, Jawahir, and his son, Murli who were digging their sugar-cane field, lying to the south of Mehi Kisan's vacant field at a distance of about 350 paces, heard the deceased as well as the appellant cry out; that, on looking in that direction, these four men saw the appellant and the deceased grappling with each other in Mehi Kisan's field; that thereupon they (i.e., the four men mentioned above) rushed towards the spot in question; that when they had covered about half the distance-or possibly a little more - all these four men saw that the appellant took out a knife and struck at Malkhan; that Malkhan began to bleed and ran to the east until he reached a neem tree, situated in village Natpura, where he fell down and died almost immediately, and that the appellant, after causing the injury to Malkhan went away on his bicycle towards Dadraul, which, as already stated, is to the west of Paintapur.

(2.) The prosecution case with regard to motive was as follows. It was said that, on the night preceding the day of the occurrence in question (i.e., on the night of Sunday, 6 February 1944), the deceased, his brother Gokul, and some other persons were warming themselves at the fire in front of the deceased's house about 10 o clock when certain boys in two batches one after the other came and told the deceased that Mahanarain wanted him to go and show card tricks; that the deceased declined to go; that thereupon, Mahanarain came himself but that the deceased still refused and then the appellant went away uttering threats.

(3.) The first information report was lodged at 7-20 P.M. on 7 February by the deceased's borther, Gokul, at police station Kant, which is said to be situated at a distance of four miles from Paintapur. This report opens with a narration of what, according to Gokul, had happened at 10 o clock on the previous night and gives a detailed account of how the appellant sent for the deceased and ultimately came himself and, on the deceased's persisting in refusing to go and show card tricks, threatened the deceased. It then states that about 2 P.M. on the day of occurrence one Jhabbu Kisan, had come and informed Gokul that the appellant Mahanarain had killed Malkhan. It recites that Gokul went to the place where Malkhan was lying dead and that he learnt the facts of the incident from Lochan, Jawahir, Murli and Lallu Bhurji. Gokul also stated in this report that the deceased had told certain persons, whose names were mentioned, that he had been stabbed by the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that there was delay in lodging the report and that this fact leads to the conclusion that the appellant has been falsely implicated. I agree that there was delay in the making of the report. The incident in question took place shortly after midday and the report was not made until 7-20 P.M., although the police station is at a distance of only four miles. I have, however, come to the conclusion, for reasons to be presently stated, that the delay was due, not to the fact that Gokul and his advisers did not know who had caused the injury to Malkhan and held a consultation to decide who should be mentioned as Malkhan's assailant and ultimately decided falsely to implicate the appellant, but to the fact that they did not know what motive the appellant could have had for causing that injury and a consultation was held in order to invent a motive and ultimately the story as to the appellant's sending for the deceased to show card tricks on tire previous night, the deceased's persistent refusal and the appellants coming and uttering threats, was invented.