NARAYAN RAUT Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been sentenced to transportation for life on the charge of murdering Bujhawan Raut on 26-1.1946.

(2.) The occurrence which gave rise to the death of Buj ha wan has its origin in a dispute about two plots of land Nos. 2380 and 2381 in village Chhitouli. The prosecution case is that, on a civil Court partition between Devi Prasad. (p.w. 8) and his cosharer some years ago, these two plots were allotted to Devi Prasad, and that, there-After, he left them in batai to Rajkumar (P.W. 2) foe a number of years, and then, eventually, sold them to him on 20-1-1946, although the appellant Narayan Raut was anxious to buy them. It is said that on the morning of 2-10-1946 Rajkumar, Ma sons Ramsakal (P.W. 1) and Ugam (P.W. 4) and his brother Bujhawan were ploughing this land when seven persons including the appellant appeared on the scene and ordered the ploughing to be stopped. Rajkumar protested, and, it 4 said, that Nagina then struck him three blows with a lathi, and that, when Bujhawan protested, Naratyan struck him with a bhala. Ramsakal is alleged to have been struck by Baburam with a bhala, and by Sakal and Sheosaran with lath is. Similarly, Sheologan and Kesar are said to have struck Ugam with lath is. The injured men left for the police station in the company of the chaukidar, but Bujhawan died en route. A first information was laid by Rajkumar at 3 P.M., the police station being six miles away. On these facts Narayan was charged with the murder of Bujhawan and the remainder were charged under Sec. 302/149. There were also charges of rioting and of injuries committed on the other injured men in prosecution of the common object of the rioters.

(3.) The defence was that Narayan was in possession on the day of occurrence and had been in possession for many years beforehand. His case is that he was in possession long before the civil Court partition between Devi Prasad and his co- sharer, and that the sale to Rajkumar by Devi Prasad was merely effected for the purpose of dispossessing him. The defence was that on 2-10-1946, when it was found that Rajkumar and his men were ploughing the land, Narayan went and protested. He was then assaulted, with the result that the other accused came to his assistance, and in the fracas which occurred four of them were injured. The Court below has found that Narayan was in possession, and that the prosecution party did go to the land on the date of the occurrence for the purpose of ploughing it and dispossessing Narayan. The medical evidence shows that four of the defence party received in the injuries, two of them sustaining injuries on their heads.