RAMSAGAR GOPE Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order deals with a death reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur in the case of four persons Ajodhya Gope, Pardip Gope, Siban Gope and Ramsagar Gope who have been sentenced to death for the murder of Siudhari Gope, Ramdhiraj Gope and Siaram Gope. There is also an appeal by these persons and by Prahlad Gope, Ramagar Gope and Ramjiwan Gope who have been sentenced to transportation for life under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. in the same connexion. The dispute arose over plot No. 1024, with an area of about 14 Kathas, which is situated in Balisahila which adjoins Kalyanpur where the parties live. Admittedly this plot was the sole landed property of one Tilak Gope who died some time prior to the year 1922. Thereafter there was a dispute between his heirs who belong to four branches of the family. The three murdered men and the witnesses Ramlakhan, Ramlachhan and Arjun belong to one of the branches which is discended from one Jaipal. Of the seven accused persons Ramjiwan, Siban and Pardip belong to the branch of Tufani, brother of Jaipal. Prahlad is the usufructuary mortgagee of the plot under Ramjiwan, and Ajodya, Ramagar and Ramsagar are related to Prahlad. According to the prosecution Siudhari came into possession of the entire plot as he was alleged to have paid the share of sradh expenses of Tilak. Subsequently Ramjiwan paid his one quarter share in those expenses and was given an equivalent share in the plot comprising a separate sub-plot on the north side. The rest of the plot remained in the possession of Siudhari. On 20 March last after sunrise Ramlakhan, Ramlachhan, Arjun and the three persons who were killed were harvesting the khesari crop grown by them in their portion of the plot.

(2.) Then the accused persons came in a mob armed with bhalas, gandasas and lathis and attacked them, with the result that the throe persons above named were killed and Arjun and Ramlachhan were injured. During the occurrence two chaukidars named Kantlal and Dhanesar arrived on the scene whereupon the rioters fled. A first information was lodged by Kantlal at midday at the thana which is 12 miles distant from the spot. The defence was that Tilak was living with Ramjiwan who was given the entire plot, and afterwards he mortgaged it with Prahlad. On the day of occurrence Ramsagar and some labourers were harvesting khesari grown by the mortgagee when Siudhari and a mob arrived armed with bhalas, gandasas and lathis. Ramsagar was assaulted and then Prahlad came to the spot and was also assaulted. Afterwards other persons came and there was a free fight and people were hurt on both sides. A first information was lodged to this effect by Ramsagar. The Sub-Inspector of Police inquired into both the cases and submitted charge-sheets, and this case has been first brought to trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that Ramjiwan and the mortgagees were in possession of the entire plot, but he convicted the accused, holding that in killing three persons they had exceeded their right of private defence. He accepted the prosecution version of the occurrence as substantially true.

(3.) As regards possession, the Additional Sessions Judge's finding is based on the evidence of the two chaukidars and the learned Assistant Government Advocate admitted that these were the most reliable witnesses and that it was difficult for him to challenge the finding on this point. This evidence, which I accept, shows that, whatever may have been the previous history of the dispute, the accused party were in effective possession at the time of the occurrence and had grown the khesari crop. The witnesses to the occurrence fall into two distinct groups, which have not been adequately distinguished by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The first group consists of those persons who claimed that they were harvesting their khesari on the plot as well as one Raja Raut who says that he arrived during the occurrence. These witnesses have tried to make out that they were attacked while they were wholly unarmed and that they were quite ignorant as to how the persons were injured on the other side. They told a materially different story to the investigating Sub-Inspector and the learned Assistant Government Advocate did not rely on the evidence of these witnesses where it comes into conflict with that of the other group, which consists of the two chaukidars and one Raghunandan Mali who is mentioned as a witness in the first information. Prom the evidence of these witnesses it is, I think, possible to obtain a satisfactory account of what actually did occur. Raghunandan is a priest who lives at a village called Hathauri which is near Kalyanpur. He says that he was collecting fees from his jajmans in Kalyanpur on the morning of the day of occurrence, and he does not appear to have any motive for not telling the truth about what he saw. He says that he saw Siudhari and seven or eight other persons on the disputed plot armed with bhalas and gandasas, and he also saw Ramsagar sitting there.