HANSRAJ SINGH ALIAS HANSA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hansraj Singh Jat, resident of village Bisokhar in the Meerut District, has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Meerut on a charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, of the murder of his caste fellow and neighbour Ganga Baksh. The record is before us for confirmation of the sentence of death passed by the Sessions Court and Hansraj Singh has appealed against his conviction and sentence. The position of the parties and the relations existing between them, prior to the violent death of Ganga Baksh on the 15th of October last, may be stated as follows. Hansraj Singh is a zemindar of the village of Bisokhar. He is not the sole proprietor of the village, but is one of a group of zemindars. Ganga Baksh deceased was a tenant of an occupancy holding of some value in that village. It seems to be an admitted fact that he held this land of Hansraj Singh, and not of any other zemindar or zemindars of the village. Ganga Baksh was getting on in years. The evidence as to his age is of some consequence in its bearing on various debated points in the case and it is not as satisfactory as ore might wish; but it seems reasonable to take it that be was about 65 years of age. He was a widower and childless; his sons and grandsons, if any, had predeceased him. Up to about the year 1910, he had living a grand-nephew of the name of Amin Chand, but Amin Chand also died about six years before the matters with which we are concerned in this case. Amin Chand left him surviving a widow, Musammat Bharto, and two young children. This woman and her children lived with Ganga Baksh in his house. In the event of the death of Ganga Baksh leaving no heir entitled to succeed him under the provisions of the local Tenancy Act, his holding would escheat to his zemirdar, that is to say, to Hansraj Singh. There can be no doubt that this fact was fully appreciated by all the parties concerned and that it led to friction and ill-will between Ganga Baksh and the appellant. The children of Amin Chand were the natural heirs of Ganga Baksh under the Hindu Law, and they would succeed to his tenancy if it could be shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Courts that they were sharing in the cultivation of the holding with, Ganga Baksh at the time of the latter s death. This might well be a fact not easy to establish as regards the two little boys, the elder of whom was apparently eleven or twelve years of age; but the older the boys; grew the easier it would be for Ganga Baksh to associate them in the cultivation in such a manner as to put their right to succession beyond the range of controversy. There is a suggestion in the first report made in this ease by Musammat Bharto that Ganga Baksh had been trying to get the name of, his younger nephew recorded in the village papers as a co-tenant of the holding with himself; but this suggestion is not supported by anything in the evidence and is apparently untrue. It is, however, certain that in the month of September last, Ganga Baksh executed and caused to be registered a certain deed in favour of the younger son of Amin Chand. In this deed it is stated that Ganga Baksh had formally adopted this boy Bhure as his own son, and the document further contains words obviously intended to operate as a bequest in favour of Bhure, whether or not the adoption were found to have taken place. We need not labour the point that any steps taken by Ganga Baksh in order to secure the succession to his holding to either or both of the children of Amin Chand were calculated to irritate the appellant, by depriving him of his reasonable hope that this holding would escheat to him as zemindar on the death of Ganga Baksh without any heir capable of succeeding to the same. Moreover, there is evidence that the ill-feeling between the parties had gone somewhat further than this. Ganga Baksh had brought a charge against Hansraj Singh and other persons, in which he alleged that they had damaged his field and assaulted him. This case was tried by a Magistrate and concluded by a judgment dated the 22nd August 1916. By this judgment the accused persons were all acquitted, and it is to be noted that the Magistrate expressed himself somewhat strongly against the complainant Ganga Baksh and clearly formed the opinion that the bringing of this charge was due to a feud in the village, in which another zemindar, a Jat of the name of Balwant, was the head of one party and the appellant Hansraj Singh of another. On the 11th of October 1916 an application was made to the Magistrate on behalf of Hansraj Singh to sanction the prosecution of Ganga Baksh for having brought a false charge against him. That application was pending when Ganga Baksh met his violent death in the early morning of October the 15th.

(2.) The first report of this crime was made at the Police Station of Begamabad shortly after 8. a. m. on the morning of October the 15th by the aforesaid Musammat Bharto. She was accompanied to the Police Station by two persons, one Thana son of Kallu Jat, and Ram Kalan the village chowkidar of Bisokhar. The report, however, was made by Musammat Bharto alone. She speaks of Ganga Baksh as her father-in-law and gives an account which has not altogether been borne out by the evidence as to the dispute between Ganga Baksh and his land- holder about the question of the succession to the former s holding. She then states that, on the previous night about the time of the evening meal, Ganga Baksh had been sent for to the baithak or house of business of his zemindar. When he returned he made a statement to the woman, to the effect that Hansa had told him that if he ploughed his field next morning he would get a beating. The report goes on to state that on the following: morning, sometime before daybreak, the time is defined as being at the rising of the morning star, Ganga Baksh took his plough and two bullocks and went out to his field. The sun had not yet risen when Nanwa Jat, a resident of the neighbouring village of Qadirabad, came to Musammat Bharto at the house and told her that Ganga Baksh had been beaten by two men, one being the appellant Hansraj Singh and the other a caste fellow, and apparently a distant relative of the appellant, named Hoshiar Singh. Nanwa did not say what the result of the beating had been. He told the woman to go and see whether Ganga Baksh was dead or alive. She went to the field and found Ganga Baksh lying dead there, and she concludes her report by formally accusing Hansraj Singh and Hoshiar Singh of the murder.

(3.) Sub-Inspector Muhammad Fasih took up the enquiry with great promptitude. He found the dead body of Ganga Baksh lying in the field as stated, and he made certain observations on the spot to which we have to refer presently. He was unable to find either Hansraj Singh or Hoshiar Singh in the village, and it would appear that Hoshiar Singh is still absconding. Hansraj Singh surrendered himself some days later, The evidence for the prosecution may be considered under three distinct heads, two of which are of comparatively small importance. There is evidence as to motive which is directed to prove the facts already stated. These facts may be taken as established. There is, in the second place, certain evidence the object of which is to contradict beforehand the defence set up by Hansraj Singh. A word or two may be said at once with regard to this part of the case. It so happened that Hansraj Singh was at Ghaziabad on October the 14th, In his defence he asserts that he did not return to his village from Ghaziabad, but proceeded to Delhi and thence on a certain journey, in the course of which he finally came to know that this charge of murder had been brought against him in his absence. The prosecution undertook to anticipate this defence by proving that Hansraj Singh returned to Begamabad by train, on his way to his village on the evening of October the 14th, and that both he and the missing man Hoshiar Singh were seen openly present in the village on the early morning of October the 15th. On behalf pf the defence two witnesses of position and respectability were called to prove that Hansraj Singh was in Delhi on the evening of October the 14th and morning of October the 15th. With regard to this part of the case we are content to say that we are not prepared to differ from the view taken of the evidence by the learned Sessions Judge. The defence witnesses to the alibi may very possibly be putting down the events of Sunday evening to the previous Saturday, and the evidence for tb6 prosecution as to the return of Hansraj Singh by train to Begamabad seems satisfactory. So far, therefore, we may take it that Hansraj Singh did return to his village on the evening of October the 14th, and that he found it expedient to go upon a sudden journey to Delhi and elsewhere in the course of the following day, so that he has not told the truth with regard to his movements immediately before and immediately after the crime Having said , this much, it is perhaps advisable that we should remark at once that under all the circumstances it is very easy to press too far against an accused person the fact that he judged it expedient to make himself scarce for a time when he learned that a charge of murder was being brought against him and was likely to be substantiated by direct evidence, and that he had not chosen to tell the plain truth to the Court about his reasons for so acting. It is also fair to say that, if this part of the prosecution case is to be regarded as established against the accused, it must be taken, further, that at about daybreak on October the 15th, Hansraj Singh and Hoshiar Singh were showing themselves openly in the village, as men who had not at that moment any reason to fear molestation by the Police. The really important part of the prosecution case, however, is the direct evidence as to what is alleged to have happened very early in the morning of October the 15th. On this point we have the statements of two witnesses, both of them Tats by caste; one of them Bhagwana, a resident of the appellant s village of Bisokbar, and the other Nanwa, a resident, of the neighbouring village of Qadirabad. Both these men are tenants of the man Balwant who has already been referred to as an enemy of the appellant. Their statements require to be considered along with that of Musammat Bharto, and also along with that of Sub-Inspector Muhammad Fasih as to the facts observed by him in Ganga Baksh s field. The time to which the evidence of these witnesses refers is a matter of considerable consequence. It cannot have been before daylight, because Nanwa distinctly deposes that he was able to see Ganga Baksh and his two assailants from a distance of 150 yards. It is perhaps not quite certain whether the witness meant to depose that he could recognise them at that distance, but he certainly professes to have recognised them from a distance of 40 or 50 paces. On the other hand, it is quite clearly and definitely a part of the prosecution case that the murder of Ganga Baksh was over, and Nanwa bad reached Musammat Bharto s house with his information, before sunrise. We may turn back for a moment to the statement in the first report that Ganga Baksh had left with his plough and bullocks about the time of the rising of the morning star. We have consulted an almanac on this point. The morning star in the early part of October last was Venus. The planet was at that time exceptionally bright. She became visible above the horizon at about 2 a. m. and continued visible until after sunrise. The distance of Ganga Baksh s field from his house seems to have been between two and three furlongs. According to the evidence of Musammat Bharto, strictly interpreted, he must have left his house before 3 a. m. and he must have been killed before sunrise, and yet at a time when the day had definitely broken. To return to Nanwa and Bhagwana; the former says that he had come out to have a look round certain fields of his. From a considerable distance he heard an altercation going on in the field of Ganga Baksh. Hansraj was abusing the old man. The witness went towards the altercation and, according to his evidence he must have gone a distance of about 100 yards while the altercation was still going on. He reached a certain well, which seems from the Sub-Inspector s plan to be situated at one corner of Ganga Baksh s field, and there he was joined by the witness Bhagwana. At that moment Hansraj was still continuing to abuse Ganga Baksh and reproaching him for having came to plough his field after he had been distinctly told not to do so. Then Hansraj Singh called upon Hoshiar Singh to beat Ganga Baksh, and thereupon Hoshiar Singh struck the old man with a lathi on the head and felled him to the ground. Thereupon bath the witnesses went away and saw nothing more. Nanwa went straight to Ganga Baksh s house in Bisokhar and told Musammat Bharto what he had seen. Questioned as to his subsequent movements, he said he went back to his own fields by another way. He did not go to the scene of the murder again. As an explanation of his conduct he said that he was afraid and did not wish to be mixed up in the business. Questioned as to what he saw in Ganga Bakhsh s field, he said that he had observed a pair of bullocks yoked and standing beside the plough. Bhagwana deposes that he was on his way to Qadirabad, that is to say, to the very village Nanwa had come from. His object in going to Qadiratbad was to see a certain Amin Darzi who had done some work for him. It would seem from his evidence that this witness had not yet heard anything when he came upon Nanwa standing by the well. He asked Nanwa what the latter was doing there, and Nanwa then called his attention to the altercation going" on in Ganga Baksh s field. The witness then heard Hansraj Singh abusing Ganga Baksh and reproaching, him in violent terms for having come to plough the field. The appellant next called upon Hoshiar Singh to beat Ganga Baksh and the witness saw a single lathi blow struck in the manner already described. He then went off in the direction of Qadirabad and saw Amin Darzi as he had originally intended.