NARSINGH SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been convicted of rioting and assaults committed in prosecution of the common object of the rioters and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Their appeal against their convictions and sentences to the learned Sessions Judge was dismissed.

(2.) The case for the prosecution was that in village Bishunpur the Bajput inhabitants are divided into two hostile parties, one of them headed by the petitioner Dharam Narain Singh. The complainant Mahabir Singh formerly belonged to this party bub has now gone over to the other side. According to the evidence of the complainant the result of this was that attempts were made by the petitioners to prevent Babulal (his ploughman) from working for him and that the attempt to deter Babulal from doing so ultimately resulted in the riot which is the subject-matter of this prosecution. The story told by the complainant was that when he went to call his ploughman, Babulal, on the Sri Fanchmi day the latter refused to work alleging that the petitioners Dharam Narain Singh and Narsingh Singh told him not to do so. He was ultimp Ipersuaded to work on that day however- but on the next day he again failed to turn up and when the complainant went to fetch him Babulal is alleged to have said that he had been threatened by Dharam Narain Singh and Narsingh Singh if he worked for the complainant. Babulal is again said to have been persuaded by the complainant to resume work but on the way they were met by the petitioners and an alteration ensued during which Babulal was abused and the petitioners stated that they would not allow him to go with the complainant. The complainant took hold of Babulal's hand and insisted upon taking him when the petitioner, Jagat Narain Singh, gave an order in consequence of which the other petitioners assaulted Mahabir Singh and two other persons on the prosecution side. Babulal was not examined at the trial although his name appeared in the list of prosecution witnesses to be examined and summons was actually served on him. But for the trial Court believing that Babulal was to be examined it is difficult to under, stand how the complainant was allowed to make statements as to what Babulal was alleged to have told him about the threats which had been made by Dharam Narain Singh and Narsingh Singh if he continued his work for the complainant.

(3.) When it was found that the prosecution were not producing Babulal as a witness the defence moved the Court to examine him as a court witness. It appears from a note on the petition that was filed for that purpose that the prosecution objected on the ground that he had been won over by the defence. The Court nevertheless directed Babulal to be summoned as a court witness, but the summons was not served. The report of the process server was that he had gone to the house of Babulal and not finding him there had affixed the summons to the house. No further attempt was made to secure the attendance of Babulal. The Courts below have justified the con. viction on the ground that apart from the evidence of Babulal there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction in spite of the fact that the trial Court found it necessary to reject the greater part of the evidence adduced by the prosecution on the ground that it was partisan evidence.