ASERUDDIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the accused Aseruddin, alias Botu, has been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code on two charges,: first, for causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon to one Rahimuddin, and secondly, for causing the same offence upon one Aseruddin, and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment on the first count, and to three years rigorous imprisonment on the second, the sentences to run concurrently. The case for the prosecution is that there was some dispute with regard to possession of a piece of land. The complainant was in possession of the land, and as he was late in transplanting the crop, he called in a number of friends and dependents to help him in the matter on the 16 September 1925. On that date he went with a large number of men and started transplanting paddy. About three bighas of land lay to the west of a path, and when the men came to that part the accused Botu, with his brother Anaruddin and one Moji, came on to the land and protest edsaying that it was his. Botu cut the strings of the foremost plough when Rahimuddin came and mended it, and started ploughing again. Botu caught his penta and threatened to strike Rahim. Rahim seized Botu by the neck; Botu seized Rahim by the neck with his left hand, and then taking the knife into his right hand stabbed Rahim until the latter fell down. Aseruddin seizsd the knife, at which Botu struck him with the knife under the right armpit. On these facts the accused was charged under Secs.304 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The majority of the jury found him not guilty under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him under Section 326 on the first count; and on the second charge, by a majority of four, found him guilty under Section 326 for causing grievous hurt to Asoruddin.

(2.) Two points have been taken on behalf of the appellant : (i) that some statements made by the defence witnesses to the police were admitted in violation of the provisions of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. With reference to this point, the facts are that two witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused. The first witness was Bibijan, who was set up by the accused as the owner of the land from whom he had taken settlement of it. In her evidence she stated : "The Sub-Inspector questioned me. I told him, I knew nothing." The second witness was Sharitulla Sarkar who said: I deposed to the Sub-Inspector. I started to tell him about the possession, but he said he did not want that, so I did not tell him any more.

(3.) With regard to the statement made by the first witness it is not the accused's case that she saw the occurrence, or that she knew anything about it. She merely told the police that she knew nothing about the occurrence. Even if this evidence is inadmissible, it does not in any way prejudice the accused. With regard to the statement made by the second witness, his statement is similarly innocuous. He said that he was not allowed by the Sub-Inspector to say what he tended to say, and he denied that he said that he knew nothing.