LAWS(PVC)-1945-12-111

RAM BABU Vs. EMPEROR

Decided On December 12, 1945
RAM BABU Appellant
V/S
EMPEROR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three petitioners, Ram Babu, Ram Singhasan Prasad and Girdhari Mistry have been convicted under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, the first two petitioners have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months each and the third one to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The three petitioners have been concerned in a riot that is said to have taken place in village Bagodar, police station Bagodar in the District of Hazaribagh on 2 April, 1944, which was the day of Ram Navami Hindu festival. Village Bagodar is situated on both sides of the Grand Trunk Road lying between milestones 215 and 216. The Grand Trunk Road runs east to west through the village. There are about four hundred houses of Hindus and one hundred houses of Mahomedans. There is a Mahabir-asthan to the east of the village by the side of the Grand Trunk Road. There is a temple dedicated to goddess Kali, commonly known as Kalimanda, to the west of the Mahabir-asthan, at a distance of about 150 paces by the side of the Grand Trunk Road. Further west at about 50 paces from the Kalimanda on the Grand Trunk Road there is a culvert. About the culvert there is a big Simal tree. A mosque stands about hundred paces west of Kalimanda. In front of the Kalimanda there is a Siris tree. Further west to the mosque is another Mahabir-asthan in village Manjhladih.

(2.) For some years past, there has been communal tension between the Hindus and Mahomedans of the locality. In 1944 Ram Babu obtained a license from the police for taking out Ram Navami procession on 2 April, 1944. The license specified the hours for the procession and further directed that the processionists could go from Mahabir-asthan in mouza Bagodar to Kalimanda within the same mouza. The authorities had taken precautionary measures against any trouble that might possibly arise on account of prevailing communal feeling in the locality. A Magistrate with ten armed constables, one Havildar and the Sub-Inspector of Police were posted, to guard against any possible attempt of the processionists to pass beyond the prescribed limit, to avoid any conflict between Hindus and Mahomedans. The armed constables were drawn up in a cordon near about the culvert and the Magistrate and the Sub-Inspector, Police, of Bagodar were also there. When the procession reached Kalimanda, the assembly attempted to proceed beyond the prescribed limit. While they had proceeded onward and approached near the culvert they were pushed back by the Sub-Inspector under the orders of the Magistrate. The processionists retreated, some went back to their houses, apparently in resentment, taking away the flags, some were showing their faces near the Kalimandas while some other were discussing there what to do. After some consultations some members of the assembly tried to push beyond the culvert but they were again pushed back by the Sub-Inspector under the orders of the Magistrate. At this stage, it is said, one member of the group, Kunj Lal, hit the Sub-Inspector on his wrist with a lathi. Kunj Lal was arrested immediately. The Sub-Inspector, while engaged in pushing back the crowd, got mixed up in it and a confusion followed upon some people pelting brickbats and stones lying about the road sides. Apparently the Sub-Inspector finding himself in danger, or apprehending danger, ran to the house of one Haricharan Lohar for safety where he concealed himself and bolted the door from inside. It is said that some members of the mob surrounded the house. One constable reported to the Magistrate that the Sub-Inspector's life was in danger. The Magistrate deputed four constables with the Havildar for the protection of the Sub-Inspector with instructions to warn the mob to disperse and in case of their refusal to disperse the mob by firing, if necessary. The Havildar and the constables eventually fired on the mob with the result that three men died at the spot and two others died later in the hospital and several men received gunshot injuries. After investigation forty men were put on trial on various charges. The Magistrate convicted twenty of them under Section 147, Indian Penal Code and also under Section 358/149, Indian Penal Code and one was convicted under Section 32, Police Act, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 30 only. Of the twenty men who were sentenced under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, eighteen were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each and two, namely, Ram Babu and Ram Singhasan, to rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months each. No separate sentence was passed under Section 353, Indian Penal Code or Section 353/149, Indian Penal Code. On appeal the learned Judicial Commissioner of Ranchi set aside the conviction under Section 353/149, Indian Penal Code and affirmed the conviction and sentence against four and acquitted the remaining sixteen men. Those four men came up in revision before this Court against the orders of the Courts below. The application of one of them was rejected and rule was issued in the case of the three petitioners before us.

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioners contended that on the facts found by the Courts below the only offence for which the petitioners may at best be liable is of violation of the terms of the license in attempting to proceed beyond the prescribed limit for which they may be liable to punishment under Section 32, Police Act, which prescribes the maximum punishment of fine of Rs. 200 only; while under Section 141, Indian Penal Code, an assembly of five or more persons is designated as an unlawful assembly, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is, among other matters prescribed in the section, to commit an "offence." Reference is made to Section 40, Indian Penal Code, which provides that the word offence in Section 141 refers to acts punishable under the special or local law with imprisonment for a term of six months or upwards with or without fine. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioners merely for violating the terms of the license cannot be said in law to be members of an unlawful assembly, and, therefore, their conviction under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, is bad in law.