RAM CHARAN RAI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, which have been heard together, arise out of a judgment of Khan Bahadur Muhammad Ibrahim, the Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur, convicting six men of rioting and murder. The riot in which they are said to have been concerned took place on 18 September 1942, and shortly afterwards a number of men were arrested and in due course put on trial before the then Sessions Judge, Rai Bahadur Aghore Nath Banarji. Most of these men were convicted and an appeal against their convictions and sentences was dismissed by Sinha and Beevor JJ., on 9 February 1944. The present appellants had absconded. One of them, namely, Satnarain Chaudhary, was apprehended on 5 July 1943, that is, shortly before judgment was delivered by Rai Bahadur Aghore Nath Banarji. The other appellants were apprehended much later; most of them not until the middle or latter part of 1944.

(2.) The immediate cause of the riot was the action of Pancham Jha and his son Nageshwar Jha and a number of labourers in cutting the marua crop standing on a small parcel of land in village Manki, to which the appellant Satnarain and most of the other appellants belong. This land was originally bakasht land, and in 1927 the landlord settled it with one Sia Chaudhary, who is the uncle of the appellant Satnarain Chaudhary. Subsequently, Sheo Parsan Chaudhary, the brother of Sia Chaudhary, took a conveyance of an eight annas interest in the estate in which this land is situated. Immediately afterwards Sheo Parsan Chaudhary mortgaged this property to one Satnarain Singh, the employer of Pancham Jha and Nageshwar Jha, who belongs to another village some considerable distance away from Manki. The mortgage money was not repaid, and Satnarain Singh in due course instituted a suit and obtained a decree in execution of which he had the mortgaged property sold and purchased it himself. The amount realised by the sale was insufficient to liquidate the debt and Satnarain Singh obtained a decree for the balance. In execution of this decree he brought to sale and himself purchased the raiyati interest of Sheo Parsan Chaudhary and his brother Sia Chaudhary in the land over which the riot took place.

(3.) In the course of the execution proceedings several persons appear to have put forward claims, asserting that they were in possession of the land on their own account and were not liable to be evicted by Satnarain Singh. These claims were, however, dismissed, and Satnarain Singh ultimately succeeded in obtaining possession of the land. Not long after the writ for delivery of possession was served, the insurrection of 1942 began, and in it the police-station at Katra, within the jurisdiction of which Manki is situated, was burnt down. A panchayat board was apparently set up by the insurgents in Berai, a village contiguous to Manki, and on 25 August 1942, this panchayat board presumed to make an award under which Sheo Parsan Chaudhary was to pay the sum of Rs. 3500 to Satnarain Singh, and Satnarain Singh was to re-convey the property he had purchased to Sheo Parsan Chaudhary. The award provided that the payment was to be made within a period of one month and provided further that, if Sheo Parsan Chaudhary was unable to make the payment, he was to have the option of conveying certain land to Satnarain Singh instead. Shortly afterwards, on 14 September 1942, the members of the panchayat caused a letter to be sent to Satnarain Singh, requiring or requesting him to abide by the decision they had given. Satnarain Singh and his agent in Manki, Nageshwar Jha, apparently declined to comply with the wishes of the board. It was, no doubt, in consequence of this that on 18 September 1942, Sheo Parsan Chaudhary collected a mob and went to take forcible possession of the land. As I have already said, Paneham Jha and his son Nageshwar Jha were on the land getting the marua crop cut when the mob arrived. Paneham Jha, when asked to quit the land, declined to do so, and thereupon he was attacked and killed. Three of the labourers were also more or less severely, assaulted. Neither Mrs. Dharamshila Lall nor Mr. K.P. Varma, who appear for the appellants, has attempted to contend that a riot of a serious kind did not in fact take place.