Hikayat Singh vs Emperor

Courtney-Terrell, C.J.—The six appellants were convicted and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge of Saran for the murder on 3rd September 1931 of one Mahadeo Teli at village Amnour, thana Mirzapur. Together with them was tried one Raghunath Singh who was acquitted. Two persons were clearly concerned with the appellants in the crime, namely, Kripali Singh, son of Raghunath Singh, and one Chait Raut, absconded, and have not been brought to trial. The two first-named appellants are Rajputs. Chathu Sah and Punit Sah are Telis. Sheolagan Ahir is a Goala and Chirkut Sah is a Kandu. The murdered man, Mahadeo Teli, and his three sons, Debi, Durga and Sheopujan, belong to the Teli caste and they have borne consistently a bad character. Debi and Sheopujan were wounded in the course of the same occurrence. The neighbourhood is one in which crimes of violence are prevalent.

The attack upon Mahadeo Teli and his sons which resulted in the death of Mahadeo occurred in the following manner. Some few months before Debi had instituted a criminal case u/s 324, I. P.C., against Raghunath Singh, Kripali Singh and the appellants Sukhdeo Singh, Chathu Sah and Punit Sah and several others including one Kishun Kurmi Kishun Kurmi had instituted a counter-case against Mahadeo and his three sons. The cases were pending in the Court of the Magistrate of Chapra. One Sarjug Nonia of the village was a witness for Debi Teli. Raghunath Singh, Sukhdeo Singh and others had asked Sarjug not to depose for Debi Teli and threatened him with serious consequences if he disobeyed their orders. Sarjug however appeared as a witness for Debi Teli before the Magistrate on 28th August. The persons accused by Debi Teli were highly irritated by this and threatened Sarjug that he would be killed. Sarjug filed an application mentioning this fact to the Magistrate. It also appears that the witnesses for Kishun Kurmi were Raghunath Singh and the appellants Hikayat Singh, Punit Sah and Chirkut Sah.

The circumstances of the murder of Mahadeo Teli have been proved up to the hilt and are correctly narrated in the clear and careful judgment of the Sessions Judge. They may be summarized as follows: On 3rd September 1931, shortly before sunset, Sarjug Nonia came to the shop of Mahadeo and complained to him and his sons Debi and Durga that he had been assaulted by the appellants Chathu Sah and Punit Sah. Mahadeo and Debi left the shop with Sarjug and went to the bhathi of Hoti Lal Sah not far from their house to gain his support. Hoti Lal Sah was not at home so, at the request of Sarjug, Mahadeo and Debi accompanied him towards his house walking up the main street of the village towards the north. When they came to the turning to the west which leads to Sarjug''s house they found the appellants together with Raghunath Singh his son Kripali Singh and Chait Raut waiting at the corner. Raghunath, Sukhdeo, Chait and Sheolagan were armed with pharsas, Kripali, Hikayat, Chathu and Punit with bhalas and Chirkut with a lathi.

The Sessions Judge has given Raghunath the benefit of the doubt and is not satisfied that he was in fact there. The learned Judge was inclined to believe that Raghunath Singh had been roped in by the sons of Mahadeo as the real leader of the party. He based his opinion on certain evidence offered by the prosecution directed to the conduct of Raghunath after the occurrence. This evidence he disbelieved. The learned Judge heard the evidence and was in a better position than we are to weigh it. Suffice it to say that he has acquitted Raghunath Singh. The armed party immediately made a violent attack upon Mahadeo. Kripali ran his spear into the abdomen of Mahadeo and the other persons simultaneously fell upon him with their weapons. As a matter of fact his body bore numerous wounds consistent with the use by his assailants of bhalas, pharsas, and lathis. He died immediately. Debi Teli was wounded in the groin by Punit Sah with a bhala and fled away and concealed himself in an unoccupied shop close by. The cries of the victims brought on the scene the two other sons of Mahadeo, Sheopujan and Durga. They also saw the assault upon their father and brother and Sheopujan was wounded by Hikayat Singh on the back of the left thigh with a bhala and was also hit by Chirkut with a lathi.

The assault was committed at a time when shops were open and the people of the village were about their evening business. There is not the slightest doubt that it was witnessed by a great number of people but there has been a conspiracy of silence and with one exception no eyewitness has come forward. When the Sub-Inspector visited the village and interviewed the persons mentioned in the first information as witnesses, every one with the exception of the single witness professed to know nothing about the matter.

It is quite evident that the sympathies of the village are with the assailants and that the inhabitants are glad to be rid of the deceased. The three brothers carried the dead body southwards down the street till they came to the neighbourhood of the bhathi from which they had originally set out. They put the dead body down upon the road and Durga went further south to find the daffadar Kapurchand Mahto. He found the daffadar at his house and told him of the occurrence and mentioned the names of all the assailants. The daffadar directed him to go and call Charitar Ahir, chaukidar, and the daffadar himself came to the place where the dead body was lying. The three brothers tried to get assistance to carry the body but all the villagers refused their assistance. Durga went to his own house and brought a khatia and the brothers placed the corpse upon it and carried it towards the house of the daffadar. Considerable time was spent in trying to get assistance and then one of the brothers brought their own bullock cart and the three brothers together with Charitar Ahir, chaukidar and another daffadar named Radhan Koeri set out for the thana at Mirzapore. The distance is some ten miles. On the way they came to the hospital at Marhowra and there they sought the assistance of the Assistant Surgeon who bandaged the injuries on Debi and Sheopujan. After this they continued their journey and arrived at the thana at 1-30 in the morning.

An attempt had been made by the learned advocate for the appellants to show that there was unnecessary delay in setting out from Amnour but we agree with the Sessions Judge that, having regard to the difficulty in carrying the body and the time occupied in seeking for assistance and the necessarily slow nature of the journey by bullock cart, the time has been quite satisfactorily accounted for.

In the first information which was lodged by Debi Teli he narrated that part of the incident which concerns Sarjug Nonia and dealt in detail with the attack on his father. He mentions as the attackers all the appellants together with Raghunath Singh who was acquitted and Kripali Singh and Chait Raut who are absconding and mentions no other persons. He specifies the weapons carried by each and then mentions a number of persons who came up on the alarm and states that the village is against him and that he cannot say if the persons whom he had named would give evidence or would be afraid to do so. Amongst the persons named is one Jamuna Singh who has in fact given evidence and has confirmed in the minutest detail the story told by the three brothers. The injuries inflicted on Debi and Sheopujan were also described together with the names of those persons who had inflicted them.

The Sub-Inspector went to the scene of occurrence arriving at 9-30 on the morning of the 4th. Durga Teli pointed out to him the place on the road in front of the house of one Phagu Sonar where the attack had taken place. He found that an attempt had been made to scrape up the blood which had been shed there and indications that an attempt had been made to conceal the bloodstains by scattering ashes. He found however unmistakeable human bloodstains. Sarjug Nonia could not be found; nor could the accused persons. Processes were issued against them under Sections 87 and 88, Criminal P.C., and they surrendered before the Magistrate some on the 14th September and some on the 23rd. As I have said, Kripali Singh and Chait Raut are still absconding. On the 14th September also Sarjug Nonia turned up and was examined by the Sub-Inspector but after that he again disappeared and has not again been seen.

The Magistrate took an extraordinary course. The accused persons, when they appeared before him were at once released on bail and this fact, together with the unpopularity of the deceased and his sons amply account for the refusal of the villagers to come forward and describe what they must undoubtedly have seen. We must point out in the most emphatic way for the future guidance of Magistrates and Sessions Judges that save in exceptional cases, persons accused of crimes punishable with long terms of imprisonment should not be released by them on bail. The richer the accused and the more easy it is for him to find bail, the less it is desirable that he should be released, and in no circumstances whatever, without an order of the High Court, should any persons accused of murder be allowed bail. In England a person charged with murder is never in any circumstances released on bail and the opportunities in India for the corruption of witnesses are so great that the risks involved cannot be exaggerated.

The three brothers have given evidence and one of the persons mentioned by Debi in his first information, Jamuna Singh, has confirmed their evidence. He is, as is to be expected, a partisan witness being the brother of Kishun Kurmi who was the complainant in the counter case before mentioned, but his evidence has nonetheless been shown to be completely reliable. He states that he was a friend of Phagu Sonar outside whose shop the occurrence took place. He arrived on the scene four or five minutes before the occurrence and his account of it corresponds exactly with that of the three brothers. He describes how Sarjug Nonia took to his heels immediately and how the neighbours kept away from the vicinity after the occurrence. The daffadar who was called by Durga has also confirmed the evidence of the brothers that the names of the accused were mentioned at the earliest possible moment. The movements of the daffadar have been confirmed by the evidence of the chaukidars.

It is difficult to find any trace of a defence by the appellants or any one of them. There was a suggestion made in the written statement that the deceased man had been killed and his sons wounded in a fight between them on the one side and some Koeris on the other in a gachi in the Koeri tola, but not a vestige of evidence was offered in support of this statement nor was the cross-examination directed to this issue nor was anything elucidated to support it. We agree with the learned Sessions Judge that it is ridiculous. Mr. Chaudhuri, on behalf of the appellants, attempted to urge it but could find nothing in the evidence to justify it. In fact the appellants have no defence whatever and Mr. Chaudhuri has been constrained to contend that the three sons were of such bad character that their story is unworthy of belief. Against this, as Sir Sultan Ahmad pointed out, the story of the assault and the identification of the accused and the part played by each of them was told at the earliest possible moment and has been consistent throughout and it is quite impossible that these three men should accuse persons other than the real assailants of having caused the death of their father and the wounds on themselves.

In this connexion Mr. Chaudhuri very properly drew our attention to the absence from the witness box of Sarjug Nonia, of Jagarnath Singh referred to in evidence and of several persons named in the first information report as eyewitnesses. The explanation given by the prosecution is that the witnesses are afraid to give evidence on account of being intimidated by the accused. We have noticed how Sarjug appeared on the 14th, the day that the accused surrendered, and was not seen again after their release on bail, and we may refer to Ex. 4, a petition filed by Jamuna and Jagarnath on 1st October 1931, alleging that their lives were threatened by the accused if they did not obey the latter and abstain from giving evidence. Jamuna Singh has deposed that he was so threatened by Raghunath, Hikayat and Punit. We are satisfied that the failure to obtain the evidence of more eyewitnesses is adequately explained.

The only doubt in the whole case is as to the sufficiency of the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for acquitting Raghunath Singh, but with the correctness of that decision we are not concerned. As I have said, the learned Judge was in the best position to estimate the weight of the evidence, and we are not inclined to dissent from his view of the matter.

One of the assessors was of opinion that all the accused were guilty and that the case admitted of no doubt. The other three assessors from whom the Sessions Judge dissented express the opinion that the marpit occurred at some other place and found all the accused not guilty. This opinion is indefensible.

This is a case of a brutal, premeditated and concerted assassination, and in such circumstances the Sessions Judge rightly passed a sentence of death and that sentence we must confirm. The appeal must be dismissed.

It would appear from the evidence that the leaders of the attack were the Rajput accused, and it is probable that the Goala and Kandu appellants may have been under their domination; but it is difficult to find anything to differentiate their respective cases. If anyone took a leading part it would seem to be Raghunath Singh who was in fact acquitted.

It is established beyond doubt that the deceased and his sons were persons of extremely bad character and a nuisance to the neighbourhood. It is not surprising that the villagers have effectively expressed their complete sympathy with the accused. Matters of this kind are however for the consideration of those in whom the prerogative of mercy is vested. The sentences are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

Rowland, J.

I agree.