SAMPAT Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case seven persons were tried before the Court of Session at Mirzapur on charges framed under sections 147 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story in its essentials may be stated thus:---A Revenue Officer named Abdul Raoof had been despatched, under the orders of his superiors, on a tour in the course of which it was his duty to realize loans which had been advanced to agriculturists, presumably under the provisions of Act XII of 1884. In the neighbourhood of a village called Baskop he was attacked by the seven appellants and one other man, alleged to be absconding. The assault was committed because of the efforts which Abdul Raof was making, in the discharge of his duty, to realize a loan of Rs. 3 which had been advanced to the appellant, Sampat. Abdul Raoof himself and two peons, Mansab Ali and Lakhmir Khan, who were attending on him, received a fairly severe beating. In the case of Abdul Raoof himself there were a large number of contusions and abrasions found on various parts of his body, and the matter was rendered more serioas by the discovery that one of the blows inflicted on the left forearm had caused a fracture of the bone. Abdul Raoof s own account of the matter may be examined in a little further detail. He reached the neighbourhood of Baskop on the 3rd of December 1916, and camped in a grove near the village. In the course of the 4th of December he realized certain arrears of advances which had been made to various persons, including one of the present appellants and the father of another. On the morning of December the 5th he sent Mansab Ali into the village to call the appellant, Sampat. It is admitted that Sampat had received advances from Government for agricultural purposes and that he had repaid the major portion of those advances It is, however, also admitted by Sampat himself that on the 5th of December last a sum of Rs. 3 was due from him on account of an advance which he had taken in the year 1912. Mansab Ali came back and reported to Abdul Raoof that Sampat was refusing to pay or to accompany him to the grove where Abdul Raoof was staying. Thereupon the latter went into the village, saw Sampat and persuaded him to accompany him to the grove, telling him that when he got there he would explain the accounts, presumably with a view to satisfying Sampat that the money, claimed was really due. According to Abdul Raoof, Sampat s neighbours were unnecessarily alarmed and jumped to the erroneous conclusion that Sampat had been wrongfully arrested and was being detained in the grove without lawful authority. A body of men, consisting of the remaining six appellants and one Mannu, alleged to be absconding, came to the grove from the village, armed with lathis. They demanded that Sampat should be let off; by which I suppose the witness means that he should be let off the payment of the Rs, 3 due from him. When Abdul Raoof explained that it was a Government due which be had no power to remit, he and the two peons were assaulted by the seven men from Baskop, and Sampat himself joined in the attack upon them. The beating continued until Abdul Raoof, Mansab Ali, and Lakhmir Khan had been laid out helpless on the ground. Their assailants then went away. In support of this story we have the evidence of three persons, Sheo Mangal, the village watchman, Rupnarain Lal, patwari, and one bholi, a resident of a village close by. He says that he happened to be present at the time because he had himself come to pay up certain arrears due from him.

(2.) In considering the defence it is necessary to divide the appellants into three classes:---The first consists of Sampat and his cousin, Ram Sumer. The second consists of the appellants, Babban, Ram Partab, and Mata Saran, who were all residents of Baskop. In the third class I place the appellants Manmohan and Sheo Mangal who are residents of a village called Pura Bandi situated some six miles off, across the border of the Allahabad District. These two last say that they were not in or near Baskop at the time of the occurrence, that they had never been to the place and had no motive for going there. They ascribe the charge against them to enmity on the part of one Mahabir Prasad, who is a subordinate official employed at the same Tahsil as Abdul Raoof. The appellants placed in the second class admit that they are residents of Baskop, but say that they happened to be absent elsewhere at the time of the occurrence. I may say at once chat such evidence as they produced on this point was flimsy and altogether unreliable. Sampat and Ram Sumer have a very definite story to tell which they have attempted to support by evidence. They say that Sampat had been supplying milk to Abdul Raoof and his camp followers during the time that the latter was staying in camp near Baskop. On the morning of December the 5th, the peon Mansab Ali demanded more milk and Sampat refused to supply it. Thereupon Abdul Raoof came to Sampat s house armed with a sword, and bringing Mansab Ali, Lakhmir Khan and another peon with him. These renewed their demand for milk, and on being refused assaulted Sampat. The latter cried for help and brought up Ram Sumer and others. Two of them assaulted Abdul Raoof and his followers. One of the peons ran away. Abdul Raoof drew his sword, and he himself along with Mansab Ali and Lakhmir Khan put up some sort of a fight, but they were knocked down by the two appellants. The medical evidence so far support s this story that Ram Sumer was found to have two slight cuts on his left wrist and left forearm. The first of these was only skin deep and the second about one sixth of an inch deep. Sampat on the other hand showed two distinct contused wounds, apparently inflicted by some blunt weapon, both on the right hand or. wrist and two slight abrasions on another part of his person. In this connection it may be said at once that Abdul Raoof in his own account of the affair admits having drawn his sword and used it in self-defence. He puts forward as his immediate reason for bringing this weapon into play the assertion that Sampat was trying to carry off a bag of rupees containing money which the witness had realized on behalf of the Government. This assertion finds practically no corroboration in the rest of the prosecution evidence and has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. In the case as argued before me no stress has been laid on the separate defence set up by the appellants Babban, Ram Partab and Mata Saran. That there was an affray between Abdul Raoof and the villagers of Baskop, in the course of which Sampat and Ram Sumer received the slight injuries already noticed while Abdul Raoof and his two attendants got a good deal the worst of the scuffle and suffered a fairly severe beating, is fully established by the evidence. That Abdul Raoof s assailants were five or more in number is a statement so corroborated by the medical evidence, and by the general probabilities of the case, that it may be accepted with confidence. That the residents of Baskop who thus assaulted Abdul Raoof included the appellants Babban, Ram Partab and Mata Saran, as well as Sampat and Ram Sumer, I hold to be also clearly established. No reason is suggested why these men in particular should have been implicated in place of other residents of Baskop concerned in the affair, and I have no doubt that the prosecution evidence may safely be accepted as to the presence on the scene of these five appellants and as to their having taken part in the assault. This was the view taken by the assessors who heard the evidence, as well as by the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) The defence as argued before me raises two points. One is that the appellants Manmohan and Sheo Mangal were not there at all and have been falsely implicated for the reason already suggested The other is that the remaining five appellants can be shown from the prosecution evidence itself to have acted in the lawful exercise of their right of private defence, as that right is defined by sections 96 to 106 inclusive of the Indian Penal Code. In connection with this defence must be taken a further contention that, in any event, the prosecution cannot be held to have proved affirmatively the ingredients necessary to a conviction under Section 333, Indian Penal Code, namely, (in this instance) that the assault committed upon Abdul Raoof took place while the latter was in the discharge of his duty as a public servant, or with intent to prevent him from discharging his duty as such, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by Abdul Raoof in the lawful discharge of his duty as a public servant.