IN RE: DINANATH GANPAT RAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOURTEEN persons including the appellants Dinanath, Syed Shabir Hussain, Agardas and Chamru were tried in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, on the charges of wrongful confinement of and causing grievous hurt to Hatau and his sons Gopal and Mudwa, the first named two persons on the additional charges of abetment of these offences. Ten of them were acquitted, and the first named two persons were found guilty of these offences punishable under Sections 330 and 330/109 and Section 348, I.P.C. and the last named two were convicted of the offences punishable under Section 330, I.P.C. Dinanath was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100 and to six months' rigorous imprisonment for causing simple hurt to Hatau and Gopal and Mudwa together respectively and further to six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence of wrongful confinement of all the three individuals. Shabir Hussain was sentenced similarly to three terms of rigorous imprisonment of six months each. The sentences were directed to run concurrently in each case. Agardas and Chamru were each sentenced to two terms of six months for each of the offences of causing hurt to Hatau and to Gopal and Mudwa together, sentences being ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) DINANATH was the Circle Inspector at Baloda Bazar and Shabir Hussain was Sub-Inspector at Bilaigarh Station House. Agardas and Chamru were Kotwars of Sendras and Jhumka respectively. Some time prior to June 1938, it was known that several cases of house-breaking occurred at mouza Silyari in Sarangarh and other places within the limits of the Bilaigarh Station House. As they remained undetected the Circle Inspector and the Sub-Inspector undertook vigorous investigation, probably under pressure from higher authorities, of several crimes which will be particularised in the sequel when necessary. These two officers accompanied by a number of constables and Kotwars arrived at mouza Jhumka and stayed at the house of the malguzar, Bahoransao. On Wednesday, 1st June 1938 at 9 A.M. they conducted searches in the houses of Hatau and his four sons Gopal, Mudwa, Ramdas and Ramcharan and seized some property from their houses and some ornaments from the persons of their female folk and children. All these persons, and one Katik and the three informers named Sonu, Sarha and Dhirasai were taken to the malguzar's bada for the record of their statements. It is alleged that all of them were kept confined in the bada from 1st June 1938 to 6th June 1938 during which period Hatau and his two sons Gopal and Mudwa were, on 1st and 2nd June, subjected to violence in the form of trampling upon their thighs and branding them with fire-bricks with a view to extort confession or such other information as would lead to the detection of the crimes. The allegation is that while the Kotwars pinned each of the three suspects to the ground, the Circle Inspector trampled upon their thighs and branded them. The lower Court has negatived the allegation of the branding of Gopal and Mudwa. Upon this appeal the points for determination which arise for consideration are (1) whether these three individuals were wrongfully confined in the malguzar's bada between 1st June and 6th June; (2) whether they were subjected to maltreatment on 1st and 2nd June 1938 as described by the prosecution.

(3.) THE question which calls for consideration is whether Hatau and his two sons were kept confined in the Malguzar's bada from 1st June to 6th June on which they were arrested. Gopal (P.W. 1), Katik (P.W. 13), Dhirsai (P.W. 15), Mudwa (P.W. 16), Ramdas (P.W. 17), Ramcharan(P.W. 18), Sonu (P.W. 48) and Sarha (P.W. 49) affirm that they were made to stay in the malguzar's bada during the time that the investigation was in progress and they were strictly guarded whenever they had to move out for purposes of nature. They are corroborated by their female relations, viz. Dhana (P.W. 3), wife of Mudwa, Mati (P.W. 4), daughter of Ramdas, Bundkuar (P.W. 11), wife of Gopal, and Mangli (P.W. 12), wife of Ramcharan, who agree in stating that Hatau and his sons were away from their houses staying in the bada during the whole period of the investigation. They are contradicted by Ramsingh Patwari (P.W. 38), Mohanlal, Sub-Inspector of Police, Basna (P.W. 39), Bahoransao (P.W. 42) and Jagmohan Singh (P.W. 45). Thus, there are three batches of witnesses. The first batch consists of persons who are all convicted in the cases of house-breaking and are consequently prone to lie against the police officers who brought their crimes to light and got them punished. Their relations were naturally interested in them. These circumstances indeed dictate caution in weighing their evidence which would become trustworthy in so far as it receives confirmation by the circumstantial evidence. Among the last batch of witnesses Jagmohan Singh (P.W. 45) who had been away from the village on Wednesday, that is 1st June, was called the next morning to Bahoransao's bada while Hatau and his sons were being questioned. He admits that Hatau was in fever eight days before his arrest and that admission invests his statement that he was moving about the village with doubt. Bahoransao (P.W. 42) and Ramsingh Patwari (P.W. 38) had evidently been victims of house-breaking and they would naturally be prejudiced against the criminals not to speak of their usually close association with the police. Both Ramsingh (P.W. 38) and Bahoransao (P.W. 42) speak about 5th June on which day they found Hatau and sons in the bada making their statements to the police.