Moti Dusadh and Others vs Emperor

Varma, J.—The petitioners Moti Dusadh, Doma Dusadh, Bisar Dusadh and Sampat Dusadh have been convicted under Sections 147, 323 and 225-B, I.P.C., and have each been sentenced to two months rigorous-imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20 or in default fifteen days rigorous imprisonment u/s 147, there being no separate sentences under Sections 323 and 225-B, I.P.C. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 9th May 1939, in the evening. The charges framed against all the petitioners were as follows:

First.--That you, on or about 9th May 1939, at Goldenganj Bailway Station, were members of unlawful assembly, whose common object was to assault the A.S.M. and his staff, Shamlal, Sukhari and Nandari and to commit mischief by breaking the glass of the station windows and to rescue Moti Dusadh from lawful custody of A. S. M. and Shamlal, pointsman, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 147, I.P.C. Secondly.--That you, on or about 9th May 1989, at Goldenganj Bailway Station voluntarily caused'' hurt to Shamlal, Sukhari and Nandan and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 323, I.P.C. TKirdly.--That you on or about 9th May 1989 at Goldenganj Railway Station rescued away Moti Dusadh from the lawful custody of A.S.M. and Shamlal and thereby committed an offence unders Section 225-B, I.P.C....

The case for the prosecution was that on 9th May 1939, S.K. Mazumdar, Travelling Ticket Examiner of the B.N.W. Ry., detected Moti Dusadh travelling without ticket at Goldenganj Railway Station. As a result of Moti''s refusal to pay the railway fare on demand, the Ticket Examiner handed him over to the Assistant Station Master of Goldenganj under T.T.E. 3 voucher (Ex. 1). After the train had left , the station, the Assistant Station Master made over Moti Dusadh to Shamlal, pointsman to watch him, and himself went to Station Office to give out and in reports to the Controller and station ahead. On his return the Assistant Station Master collected tickets from the inward passengers who had alighted from the train and during that time he saw a group of 15 or 20 persons who had got down from the train going from west to east on the platform and not through the main gate.

He demanded tickets from those persons but they refused to deliver any ticket and abused him. It is unnecessary to quote the real words of abuse. Then the Assistant Station Master asked Shamlal, to stop them and realize the railway fare; When Shamlal stopped them, they began to assault him with lathis. Even the Assistant Station Master, when he remonstrated, was chased and he took shelter in his office. These persons then broke the glass of the station windows and fled away. When the Assistant Station Master came out of his office after the rioters had gone, he saw injuries upon the three persons mentioned in the charge--viz., Shamlal, Sukhari and Nandan. He wired to the Controller at Sonepore, who directed him to send the injured men to the Sonepore hospital. He also sent wires to the District Traffic Superintendent and the Government Bail way Police at Sonepore, and issued charge sheet against Moti Dusadh, who also joined the rioters.

The defence version was that the petitioners had committed no offence; that they never travelled without tickets or got down at Goldenganj Station. It was said that the real fact was that one Mt. Dhanesri, a relation of Moti Dusadh who came from Ghandernagar and had ticket up to Sonepore got down at Goldenganj on 8th May 1939, at 11 A.M., and paid excess fare. On the same evening she came again to Goldenganj Station for going to Chapra with her belongings. The pointsmen Sukhari and others finding her alone at the station wanted to detain her for the night. On her refusal, they used force and Moti and other accused arrived and rescued Dhanesri and were assaulted by the pointsmen. Mt. Dhanesri and the injured persons came to Chapra, got their injuries examined by a doctor and filed a complaint.

The complaint was filed by Dhanesri on 11th September last. The Courts below have accepted the prosecution version and have discarded the defence version.

In revision before me it is argued that the Courts below have not attached due importance to very material evidence in the case, and that, had they done so, they would have accepted the defence set out. In order to substantiate this point, the learned advocate for the petitioners has drawn my attention to (Ex. l) which is ''known as T.T.E. 3 voucher in which the name of Moti Dusadh is mentioned as a passenger who was travelling without a ticket. My attention has been next drawn to Ex. B, a draft telegram in which the time mentioned is 9-30 P.M.

Now in this telegram the name of Moti is not mentioned. Reference is then made to Ex. 8, the station diary which again does not mention the name of Moti Dusadh. Reference is also made to Ex. 2, a telegram despatched at 22.50 hours on 9th May 1939, which does not mention Moti Dusadh. These documents do not as a matter of fact mention the name of any of the accused per. sons. But the case of Moti is distinguishable from those of the other petitioners, inasmuch as Moti was known to the railway staff at least through Ex. 1, and the fact that he has not been mentioned in any of these documents as the person who took part in the assault or committed the rioting leaves some room for doubt with regard to his participation in the affair as alleged by the prosecution. It may not be necessary to state anything more after I have doubted his participation in the affair because on that ground alone he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

But it is worth noting that in the charge u/s 225-B, I.P.C, it is said that the accused persons, including Moti himself, rescued away Moti Dusadh from the lawful custody of A.S.M. and Sham lal.'' That is not possible, because Moti could not rescue himself from the lawful custody and the conviction against him u/s 225-B could not in any case stand. However, for the reasons already given, I am of the opinion that it is very doubtful if Moti Dusadh participated in the riot. So far as the other petitioners ''are concerned, after giving full weight to the argument advanced on behalf of them, I see no reason to interfere with their convictions and sentences. In the result the petitioner Moti Dusadh is acquitted and the application of the other petitioners is rejected.