Dhanu Raut and Others vs Emperor

Mullick, Ag. C.J.

The fifteen petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 175 of 1927 have been convicted under Sections 147 and 379 read with Section 149, I.P.C., of committing a riot on the 22nd June 1926, between 5 and 6 p. m. at Maksudpur in the district of Muzaffarpur. The petitioners are Hindus and it has been found that they attacked the Muhammadans of the village in order to prevent them from sacrificing cows during the Bakrid festival which was then being celebrated by the Muhammadans.

Between 4 and 7 p. m. the Hindus also attacked the Muhammadans of mouza Babhangawa which is one mile from Maksudpur and in that riot five of the present petitioners namely, Dhannu, Gokul, Bhola, Manoj and Sunder took part.

On the following day, i. e., the 23rd June, about 1-30 p. m. the Hindus again attacked the Muhammadans of the neighbouring village of Maheshasthan. In that riot Dhannu, Gokul, Bhola, Manoj and Sunder again took part and some of those who had taken part in the riots at Babhangawa or Maksudpur also took part in this riot.

At that time the police were on duty at mouza Anrai which is close to all three villages and dispersed the mobs on the 22nd and the 23rd before they could do any serious damage. At Maksudpur live Muhammadans were injured, the severest injuries being those of P.W. No. 17 who had an incised wound 2� inches long and P.W. No. 20 who had a fractured arm. The property of seven Muhammadans was also looted comprising household articles and 25 cows which were afterwards recovered.

Thirty-seven accused were sent up for trial by the police of whom the trial Court acquitted ten. In appeal the Sessions Judge acquitted twelve more with the result that there now remain fifteen who have preferred the revision before us.

Fourteen of the petitioners have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven months each u/s 147, I.P.C. and also to the same term of imprisonment u/s 379 read with Section 149, I.P.C., the sentences running concurrently. Sunder Rout has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 300 on each charge. It is said that he was the leader of the local Hindu Sabha and is a very influential man.

The accused who wore convicted for the riot at Babhangawa and who made an application for revision to the High Court, did not meet with any success and their application was dismissed.

In the Maheshasthan case sixty-eight Hindus were sent up for trial, of whom ten were acquitted by the trial Court. In appeal eight more were acquitted by the Sessions Judge and there remain fifty accused who have preferred an application for revision, namely, Criminal Revision No. 202 of 1927 to the High Court.

That case also has been heard by us and is pending for orders. In that case forty-nine of the applicants were sentenced to seven months rigorous imprisonment each u/s 147, I.P.C., and the same period of imprisonment u/s 379 read with Section 149, I.P.C. Sunder Raut, the fiftieth applicant, was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 300 on each charge.

The result, therefore, is that out of the accused convicted by the Sessions Judge in the three cases Sunder Raut has been sentenced to six fines of Rs. 300 each. Dhannu, Gokul, Bhola and Manoj have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a total period of twenty months, i. e., six months for the riot at Babhangawa, seven months for that at Maksudpur and seven months for that at Maheshasthan. Nathuni, Kamuna, Khobari, Nawab, Ramji, Thaga, Ambika, Bhutta and Bunni have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for thirteen or fourteen months each as the case may be. The remainder have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each as the case may be with the exception of Ram Bharos who has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 75 only.

I will now take up the cases in their chronological order.

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 175 of 1927.

This case was admitted by the Division Bench only for hearing the petitioners, on the question of sentence.

It has been established that a mob of 1,000 Hindus attacked Babhangawa between 4 and 7 p. m. and 60 Hindus attacked Maksudpur between 5 and 6 p. m. There can be no doubt that the attacks were part of a widespread movement constituting a serious menace to public order and tranquillity and there is no logical principle on which we can discriminate between members of the respective opposing communities or between members of the same community. The lower Courts have exercised their discretion and there is nothing to show that it has been wrongly exercised. In this view of the case, the sentences of imprisonment passed on the petitioners will be maintained.

But as regards the sentence of fine passed upon Sunder Raut, I think the aggregate of Rs. 1,800 imposed in the three cases might with propriety be reduced. He does not appear to be a man of large means and the greatest sufferers will be the women and children of the family. The sentence of fine of Rs. 300 passed upon each head of the charge on Sunder is reduced to one of Rs. 100 under each head, in this case and in default of payment Sunder Raut will suffer one month''s additional imprisonment under each head.

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 202 OF 1927.

In this case the evidence is that about 2,000 Hindus began to assemble at Maheshasthan about 1-30 p. m. on the 23rd June and that in consequence of information sent by a Mahomedan named Abdul Shakur the police arrived between 3 and 4-30 p. m. from Aurai and stopped further mischief. In the meantime one part of the mob had attacked a mango orchard which was being guarded by the two Mahomedans named Akhtar and Ramzan. They beat both these men and carried away about Rs. 200 worth of mangoes. The injuries on Ramzan were eleven in number, the most severe being an incised wound four inches long on the upper part of the right arm. Among Akhtar''s injuries were two lacerated wounds on the head. The mob was armed with lathis and garasas and were crying "Sunder Sabhapati ki jai."

In the first information which was lodged at 4-30 p. m. the names of fifteen of the petitioners only are recorded, the names of the remainder being given during the investigation. It was suggested in the Courts below that the police prepared lists of the prominent Hindus of the neighbourhood and that the Mahomedan witnesses picked cut the petitioners from these lists. The Courts below have, however, both found that the witnesses were in a position to identify all the accused in Court and that they were not prompted by the police to name a number of persons whom they had not seen at the riot. The learned Sessions Judge''s finding on this point is based on evidence and has been arrived at after full consideration and must be accepted. But it is urged that those who did not enter the mango orchard did not commit any offence and in this connexion our attention is drawn to the extremely careless drafting of the first charge. Several common objects are therein set out which do not come within the definition of the unlawful common objects recited in Section 141, I.P.C. Seeing that in important cases the Crown is always represented by a legal practitioner or a Court Sub-Inspector of ability, I fail to understand why there is such persistent disregard of the elementary provisions of the statute, and in the present case I think the prosecution clearly ought to have suggested to the Court that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to assault the Mahomedans and by criminal force or show of criminal force to enforce a right to restrain the Mahomedans from sacrificing cows. It is found that, as a matter of fact, the custom of cow sacrifice exists in Maheshasthan and that on the 22nd June six cows had already been slaughtered in that village.

In my opinion the charge of rioting and of the theft of mangoes in prosecution of the last-mentioned common objects has been established against all the petitioners before us.

It has been urged before us that Sunder Raut is nearly blind; but the learned Sessions Judge finds that he was able to walk quite well enough on the day in question.

There remains the question of sentence. Dhannu, Gokul, Bhola and Manoj took part in both the riots on the previous day and I see no ground for reducing the sentence of seven months'' rigorous imprisonment passed upon them in this case.

Sunder has also been found guilty of taking part in two riots of the previous. day and he has been fined Rs. 600 in the present case. It is useless to inflict fines which will cripple the family for years and in the end fall on the women and children and I think the ends of justice will be met if in the present case Sunder Raut''s fines are reduced to Rs. 100 each under each charge, so that the total sum payable by him for the three cases will be Rs. 1,000. As in the last case he will be liable to further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under each charge in default of the payment of fine.

The sentences of other petitioners do not call for any reduction.

The result is that with the exception of Ram Bharos and Sunder Raut those of the petitioners who have been found guilty of taking part in both the other two riots will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a total period of twenty months each and those who took part only in one of the other two riots will undergo rigorous imprisonment for thirteen or fourteen months each as the case may be and those who took part only in one riot will undergo rigorous imprisonment for six or seven months each as the case may be.

This judgment will govern not only Criminal Revision No. 202 of 1927 but also No. 175 of 1927.

I have to draw attention to the fact that the trial Court did not dispose of these cases till nearly six months after the riots had occurred. Delay such as this is seriously prejudicial to the course of justice in cases where identification is a material issue.

Wort, J.

I agree.