THAKUR SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thakur Singh, Pyare, Bed Ram alias Bidhey and Ghariba appeal from their conviction and sentences under Secs.201 and 385, I.P.C. This case was started on a complaint made by Chunni, brother of Khamani deceased. The complaint was instituted under Section 302, I.P.C., but the accused were committed to the Court of Session under Section 304, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge added a charge under Section 201, I.P.C. There was however no charge under Section 385, I.P.C. The facts that have given rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. Thakur Singh, appellant 1, is one of the zamindars of village Abheypura. The other three appellants are the servants and tenants of Thakur Singh. On 11 November 1937, at 6.30 P.M. Chunni lodged a report at police station Amanpur, in the district of Etah, against all the four appel. lants. In the report, it was stated that appellants 2 to 4 were sent by appellant 1 on the preceding day (10 November) after sunset to call Khamani to the zamindar S1 house. The three appellants caught hold of Khamani and forcibly took him to the zamindar. The complainant Chunni accompanied them to see what the matter was. It was stated that Khamani was beaten under the orders of Thakur Singh. The complainant ran away through fear. The next morning when Chunni went to the jungle to ease himself he saw the dead body of his brother hanging on a tree with a rope tied round the neck. Then certain persons were named who arrived at the place where the dead body was hanging. Later, an incident said to have occurred three days earlier is described in the report. It is stated that three days earlier Thakur Singh imposed a fine of Rs. 5 on Mani Ram and the complainant and had them beaten. Reference was made to another incident in which one Jiwa Ram, a tenant, was fined Rs. 3 by Thakur Singh and the amount was actually realized. The report winds up with the following statement: The persons who have come here with me had also seen the occurrence when Thakur Singh himself had beaten my brother and had got him beaten by others. After my brother had been beaten to death Thakur Singh got his dead body hung up on a tree at some time which is not known to me. I have come to make a report.

(2.) The persons accompanying the complainant were Khushali, Liladhar, Mani Ram, Jiwa Ram and Mauji Ram, all Kachhis by caste and residents of Abheypura. The complainant himself is a Kachhi. The second officer, in the absence of the station officer, took over the investigation of the case and proceeded to the village. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and recorded the statements of practically all the prosecution witnesses. Prom the postmortem report, which was verified by Dr. Ranado, Civil Surgeon, Etah, it appears that the cause of death could not be ascertained. The Civil Surgeon recorded his opinion in the post-mortem report as follows: No cause can be ascertained. No evidence of death by hanging. The man may have died of shock. Viscera has been preserved for chemical examination if considered necessary.

(3.) The viscera was never sent for examination to find out whether the death may have been caused by poison. It may be noted that the deceased was a man of about 30 years of age, well built and muscular. The doctor in his examination in Court further amplified his post-mortem report and stated that the deceased had not committed suicide and the marks on the neck were post mortem. In cross- examination the doctor stated: It is possible for the man to have died of heart failure. That the hearts were empty shows that it might have been a case of heart failure. That is the only symptom of heart-failure. There was either external or internal injury. Shock is a cause of heart-failure, though it is not the only cause. There was no sign of shock on the body and it is act necessary that in every case of shook there should be signs.