RAMRAS MAHTON Vs. KING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants, and three others who have been acquitted, were tried in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Saran under Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. The appellant Ramras was also tried and convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to transportation for life. The appellant Rambaran was tried on a charge under Section 324 and convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. The charge under Section 302/149 failed against all the accused.

(2.) The facts alleged by the prosecution are that at about 3 p.m., on 17-10-1946, Ramdeo Singh, a resident of village Shivapur, was visiting a small piece of land which he held in village Lohra, where the accused persons lived, for the purpose of trimming the ridges of the field. Running along the northern boundary of this field an earthen platform separated the field from the house of the appellant Ramras. It appears that this platform was made by and has been in the occupation of Ramras for soma considerable time. While Ramdeo was cutting along the southern edge of the platform, Ramras armed with a bhala, appeared on the scene and objected. An altercation followed, in the course of which, it is alleged, the other four accused arrived on the scene armed with bhalas. Ramras is said then to have struck Ramdeo in the abdomen and in the chest with the bhala. As a result Ramdeo fell down in his field and died. He was also struck by Rambaran. The prosecution witnesses are said to have come up from the neighbouring fields in which they were working on hearing the altercation between Ramdeo and Ramras. A first information relating to this occurrence was laid at the thana seven milea away by Tribeni Singh, prosecution witness No. 1, at 5 p.m. Two hours later, Eamras appeared at the thana and laid a first information. According to this latter information, the occurrence took place at 1.30, when Ramras found two persons, whom he named, cutting away his chabutra, while Ramdeo and a number of others armed with various weapons were standing by. Ramras protested against the cutting of the chabutra and was thereupon assaulted. He fled into his house pursued by Ramdeo and his men, picked up a bhala in the house and injured an unnamed person while defending himself.

(3.) There is no evidence in support of the defence version of the occurrence. It was rejected by the Court below, and we have not been invited to reverse that decision so far as concerns the alleged flight of Ramras into his house, his pursuit there and his defence of himself in the house with a bhala. It is not, however, accepted that the assault on Ramdeo took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. On the other hand, it is contended that the pro-babilities are that Ramdeo went to his field accompanied by a number of persons intent on demolishing the chabutra. and that, when Ramras protested against this, he was assaulted. There is, as I have said, no evidence in support of this version of the occurrence. It has been found in favour of the appellants, however, that Ramdeo was engaged in cutting away the southern edge of the platform. The Court below found that he was doing this under the impression that the chabutra encroached, to some ex. tent, on his field. The finding also is that Ramdeo was assaulted while he was on his own land because he refused to desiet from cutting the chabutra when Ramras objected. The Court below has not accepted the defence suggestion that the witnesses who have deposed in support of the prosecution case were persons who had accompanied Ramdeo to the scene for the purpose of ensuring the demolition of the chabutra. There has been no specific criticism of the evidence of the witnesses in this Court, although Mr. Nageshwar Prasad on behalf of the appellants has argued generally that the probabilities are in favour of the defence put forward in the Court below, namely, that the persons now posing as witnesses who arrived on the scene from their fields on hearing the altercation were in fact people who had accompanied Ramdeo to his field. In thesecircumstances, I see no reason to differ from the conclusion reached by the Court below as to the facts which may thus be summarised: first, that Ramdeo was engaged in cutting away the southern portion of the chabutra which was built by and had been in the possession of Ramras for some years; secondly, that Ramras objected to the cutting of the chabutra; and, thirdly, that the persons claiming to be eye-witnesses, who were residents of village Shivapur and who were working in their fields not far from the scene of the occurrence, came up and witnessed Ramras striking Ramdeo with his bhala. There is one other conclusion which must be accepted, and that is that some one struck Ramras with a cutting weapon. When he was examined by the Jail Doctor on the 19 it was found that he had three injuries: (1) an incised-looking injury on toe top of the head 2 ? and scalp deep; (2) an abrasion on the upper part of the right side of the nose ? and (3) a longitudinal scratch on the dorsal aspect of the root of the left thumb 1/3 long and of insignificant breadth. The doctor's opinion was that the first injury might have been caused by a sharp instrument and the second and third by a blunt instrument. The evidence tendered by the prosecution does not explain these injuries on Ramras. But that, in my view, is not sufficient reason by itself for rejecting the rest of the evidence in the case. These witnesses had been named by Ramras as his assailants in the first information, and while the investigations into the allegations against them were pending, they were not likely to make any admission against themselves. That is a common feature in cases like this, where injuries have been suffered by both sides.