NATHU MAHTO Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eight petitioners have been convicted under Secs.147 and 324 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, and they have been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each in default three months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) A very brief outline of the facts leading to this prosecution are that the petitioners are residents of village Jagdishpur in which there are jungles of fuel wood and of other kinds of trees. Admittedly in Part 2 of the Khewat they have been recorded to have the customary right of taking their necessary fuel from the jungle. The complainant's party belong to an adjoining village Barasi and some of the residents of Barasi have got raiyati lands in Jagdishpur. The complainant's party by virtue of their possession of raiyati lands in Jagdishpur also claim to have similar customary right to take fuel from the jungles. On the day of occurrence, the complainant's party armed with their alleged customary right, came in a body with 18 or 20 carta and cut fuel wood and while they were carting them they were opposed by the accused persons and certain others of village Jagdishpur as they thought that the complainant's party had no such right and they by their action were encroaching upon the rights of the accused persons. Admittedly there was mutual marpit and a large number of people of Jagdishpur belonging to the petitioners party were injured and one of them died of injuries in the hospital, while some three men of the complainant's party had also been injured. Both parties lodged information against each other and the police charge-sheeted both the parties.

(3.) The learned Magistrate acquitted the complainant's party and convicted the petitioners as already mentioned and had originally sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment of 1 year each. The learned lower appellate Court has reduced the sentence of imprisonment to 6 months each, as I have already stated. The trial Court considered that the complainant's party, coming as they did under the protection and with the permission of the landlord, were fully justified in removing fuel wood and inflicting injuries on the people of the accused's party in vindication of their right, while the learned lower appellate Court took the view that the question of the right of private defence did not arise as both parties had come determined for a premeditated fight, though the villagers of Jagdishpur were worsted.