Radhe Sahi and Others vs Emperor

Ross, J.—The six appellants have been sentenced to transportation for life on conviction on charges under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge u/s 148 was that they were members of an unlawful assembly the common object of which was to beat Munshi Rai, and that they were armed with deadly weapons. As Munshi Rai was killed in the course of the riot, there was a further charge u/s 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case for the prosecution is that on the 19th August, 1923, two men named Ramasis and Saheb Mahto were sitting on a Machan in the field of one Nepal Mahto one or one and a half gharis before sunset. They are residents of Chanaotoli alias Jahangirpur, a village chiefly inhabited by Chanaos. Munshi Rai of the neighbouring village Lachminiatola, which is inhabited chiefly by Rajputs and Babhans, was coming from village Deokali, where ha had gone to visit the temple and was returning towards his home. When he came near the Machan Saheb and Ramasis asked him to take tobacco. He stopped there and took tobacco whereupon Saheb seized him by one of his arms, Ramasis by the other and thirty and forty people armed with various weapons came from the adjoining field of Bishundeyal. The appellant Radhe gave Munshi Rai a blow with a garansa on his shoulder and the appellant Ganga gave another blow with a garansa on his right knee. Munshi Rai fell and then a cry was raised that he was killed and his assailants dispersed.

The reason for this occurrence was that the Chanaos had recently adopted the sacred thread and this had aroused the resentment of the Rajputs who had proceeded to commit various acts of oppression against them; and a further motive is assigned in the fact that Ramasis, who was an employee of the Sheohar Raj had instituted a false rent suit against Munshi Rai in 1326.

The defence as gathered from the written statements of the accused was that ever since the Chanaos adopted the sacred thread the Rajputs and Babhans had been oppressing thorn. There had been numerous acts of aggression and oppression which had been reported to the authorities between the 20th of July and the 17th of August. A constable and some Chaukidars and Dafadars had been deputed to the village to prevent a breach of the peace; and on the 19th August they were informed that the Rajputs were looting the crops of the Chanaos on the south and on the north of the village. The constable and the Dafadars went to the south and were unable to prevent the looting. They went to the north where they saw some people running away and were informed that two Rajputs had been killed.

The case was tried with the assistance of three assessors, all of whom disbelieved the case of the prosecution that Munshi Rai was Waylaid. The opinion of the assessors was that he had probably gone with the other Rajputs to loot the crops of the Chanaos and it was in these circumstances that ha received his injuries. All the assessors were of opinion that the Chanaos were acting in defence of their crops and should be acquitted.

The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the story of the offering of tobacco to Munshi Rai. He did not think that it was necessarily Munshi for whom the Chanaos were lying in wait but thought that they were ready to attack any Rajput who came in their way. With regard to the death of the second Rajput which had been brought to the notice of the police the learned Sessions Judge says that no evidence was given about him, nor was his dead body forthcoming. He was further of opinion that there was no evidence that Munshi Rai took part in any looting and that there was nothing in the evidence to show that the accused were acting in self-defence; and that while the looting on the south of the village had been established there was no proof of looting on the north. He therefore accepted the evidence of the prosecution and convicted the appellants.

The first point that falls to be considered is the state of feeling prevailing at the time between the Chanaos and the Rajputs. Exhibit B is an information to the police given on the 20th of July 1923 about the breaking of the sacred thread of a Chanao by certain, Rajput and threats that they would loot his house. On the 24th of July a Head constable who had gone to the village to enquire into certain complaints that had been made found an assembly of 500 Rajputs armed with lathis and other weapons prepared to commit disturbance over this sacred affair. With difficulty he persuaded them not to commit a breach of the peace and the Magistrate ordered proceedings to be drawn up u/s 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code against six Chanaos and forty-two Rajputs. Exhibit C of the 1st August and Exhibit D of the 2nd August and Exhibit E. of the 3rd August are to the same effect as Exhibit B Exhibit F reports an actual assault on a Chanao by a certain Rajput on the 10th August. On the 14th and the 15th of August there were occurrences of looting crops which ended in conviction. On the 20th of August a complaint was lodged by Ganga, one of the appellants, of an occurrence on the 17th of August when he was assaulted by certain Rajputs and had his sacred thread broken. This event immediately preceded the occurrence which is the subject of the present case.

The first information was given at midnight on the 19th, the Police Station being five miles from the place of occurrence. There was therefore considerable delay on the part of Rambahadur, the informant, who deposed to having witnessed the occurrence, before going to the police. The explanation that he gave of the delay was that he had to come from a long distance and the river was full. But this explanation is not sufficient and it is not complete. He says that after the occurrence he had taken the dead body of Munshi Rai east of the Barhamasthan and then he and Dharkhan Rai the nephew of Munshi Rai, crossed at the Sugiaghat and went to the thana. But from the evidence in the case it appears that much more had happened in the interval, as to which the informant was silent before the Police.

As to the actual facts of the occurrence the evidence in this case falls into two parts. In the first place there is the evidence of the Rajput witnesses who all tell the same story. The story is, roughly speaking, the same as the first information. But there is another body of evidence which consists of the depositions of the constable and the dafadar and chowkidars who were on duty in the village and it is necessary to examine that evidence also in order to discover what actually happened. The constable sent two chowkidars, Janab Ali and Abdur Rahman to the Police Station and an information was recorded at 1 A.M., on the 20th August, 1923 (Exhibit 6) to the effect that a little before sunset the Rajputs with a view to cut by force the Makai crop of the Chanaos collected in a mob at Jahangirpur, some towards the south and some towards the north. The constable and the dafadar and the chowkidars went to stop the mob in the southern direction and in the meantime they heard that Munshi Rai of Lachminiatola and a Raj put of Gossainpur belonging to the mob on the northern side had been assaulted. By the time the constable and dafadar and the chowkidars went towards the mob on the north the Rajputs had run away with the wounded men. Then the chowkidars went to the house of Munshi Rai and learnt that the wounded Munshi Rai was in his house, but his relations said that he had been attacked on his way back from Deokali by some Chanaos who had killed him and caused his body to disappear; and the relations did not allow the chowkidars to go inside the house. It was at this stage that these chowkidars were dispatched by the constable to the Police Station to give information. These facts have been stated in fuller detail by Ramsagar Singh constable, prosecution witness No. 20. He adds the fact that it was Ramasis who informed him that the mob had assembled, and that he received the information while he was sitting at Saheb Mahto''s door. He further said that Saheb Mahto was not at his house on the 18th or 19th. As to the loot on the south of the village, that has not been disputed on behalf of Grown; and, as to the loot on the north, the constable says that he saw that five or seven kathas of Makai crop had been cut and some men were running away. He went to the house of Munshi and found a lame man who denied that a dead body had been brought there. Then he sent Janab Ali and Abdur Rahman to the Police Station and posted chowkidars round the house so that the dead body might not be removed. Then Rambahadur, the first informant took him inside and showed him the dead body. He further added in cross examination that three fields seemed to have been looted at; the place where the blood was. The crops were partly ripe and partly unripe. This evidence is corroborated in all details by the dafadar Fasihuddin who further says that a Rajput of Sundarpur told him that Munshi Rai of Lachminiatola and Kodai Rai of Gossainpur had been killed by a mob of Chanaos. He was then deputed by the constable to look for the other dead body and went to Gossainpur but could not find out what had become of the body. The Chowkidars Janab and Garib, further corroborate these witnesses. This is evidence offered by the prosecution as true evidence and no reason has been shown for disbelieving it. The Sub-Inspector who investigated the case found; that the Makai crop had been cut in four fields near the field where the blood was found. He noticed damage on the morning of the 20th on the north of the village and it was on the 21st that the damage on the south was pointed out to him. To my mind there can be no doubt that this body of evidence represents the actual state of things on the afternoon of the date of occurrence. Active looting was going on at two places, on the south and on the north of the village; and it was while the police were going from the south towards the north and when they saw men actually going away from the scene of looting on the north that they received the information that not only Munshi Rai had been killed but another Rajput also. All these facts throw the greatest doubt on the story set up by the Rajput witnesses that Munshi Rai was waylaid.

The learned Sessions Judge evidently had some doubts about that part of the case. The story of offering tobacco is incredible, considering the relations between the parties, and he rightly rejected it. That Munshi Rai had been to Deokali is deposed to by two witnesses, Paltu Sonar, the tenant of a Rajput and Rajnandan Singh who is a Rajput and a connection of the deceased. This evidence seems to me to be suspicious for several reasons. The post-mortem examination reveals the fact that there was partially digested rice and dal in the stomach of the deceased and these witnesses have come forward in the Sessions Court with a story that the deceased stopped at Sheohar on his way back from Deokali and took rice and dal, a most improbable story in itself and one which was never mentioned to the Police or in the Court of the committing Magistrate. Then Paltu gives the detail that Munshi Rai was carrying a lota and an umbrella and a kurta. This is the only reference to the kurta in the whole case. By the time the Sub-Inspector went to the scene of occurrence on the morning of the 20th, the body of Munshi Rai had been carried back to the field where he had been attacked and lota and an umbrella were found beside the body. But no witness ever noticed these articles on the field the evening before. This seems to be a matter of the gravest suspicion and it is evident that these articles were placed beside the body in order to give support to the story that Munshi had been out of the village on a peaceable expedition. No witnesses from the Deokali temple which he is said to have visited were examined. The place selected for the waylaying of Munshi Rai was hardly suitable for the purpose as it is close to the Rajput villages and at a distance from the Chanaos. There seems to have been a good deal of uncertainty about this part of the case in the mind of the prosecution at the beginning, as not only was there delay in the lodging of the first information, but Rambahadur made discrepant statements before the Sub-Inspector as to the place from which he had seen the waylaying of Munshi Rai, naming first one Machan and then another which was separated from it by a considerable distance. I disbelieve altogether the story that Munshi Rai had been to Deokali and was waylaid on his return.

The occurrence itself as alleged by the prosecution does not seem probable. No reason is given for the sudden disappearance of the accused. They went away without any reason. But still more important and in fact the most important point in the case, is the removal of the body by the Rajputs. The learned Sessions Judge has suggested that they may have been unwilling to leave it on the field or to produce it before authorities unimportant than the Sub-Inspector. But this in my opinion does not explain their denial of the presence of the body in the house when the constable went there. There was nothing to be feared from the constable and there was no reason why the presence of the body in the house should have been denied. This strongly suggests that the Rajputs were the aggressors and were endeavouring to conceal their casualties. This view is confirmed by the episode of Kodai Rai of Gossainpur. Evidence was given before the Magistrate that this other Rajput had also been killed and that his body had been made away with. The Magistrate refers to this in his commitment order where he says that "A good deal of evidence has been led in this case to show that some of the accused had been seen carrying Kodai''s body towards the Bagmati." That evidence was entirely dropped at the trial and yet it is clear from the statements of the Police witnesses which have already been referred to, that they were informed that Kodai Rai had bean killed and that search was made for his body. The fact that Munshi Rai''s body was removed by the Rajputs would suggest that the body of Kodai Rai, if he was killed, had also been removed by his fellow castemen. And if it is a fact that two Rajputs were killed, this not only throws the gravest suspicion on the tale of the waylaying of Munshi Rai, but adds strongly to the probability that what happened was that these men met their deaths in the course of the looting of the Chanaos'' fields. Rambahadur did not mention the fact of the concealment of Munshi Rai''s body in the first information; and the prosecution has given no real explanation of it. It seems to me that the inference that strictly follows from the concealment of the body is that the Rajputs felt that they were not in a position to go to the Police that they were conscious that they were the aggressors; and that this death had been the consequence of their own act.

It was suggested by the learned Assistant Government Advocate that the number and the nature of the injuries on Munshi Rai are not consistent with the theory that he was killed in a riot. But it is by no means certain that all the injuries were anti-mortem; and, in any case, I see nothing in this which negatives the defence. It cannot be inferred from these injuries that Munshi Rai was entirely alone. He may have been isolated from the others; and the evidence to my mind leaves no doubt that looting by the Rajputs were going on the north of the village and that it is in the course of that looting that Munshi Rai came by his death.

In all these circumstances it seems clear that the case which has been presented to the Court by the prosecution is not a true account of how Munshi Rai was killed. It was therefore unnecessary for the accused to plead private defence or to show that they had not exceeded the right of private defence. The case for the prosecution being in my opinion definitely untrue, it seems to me that the convictions cannot stand and must be set aside. The accused must be acquitted. Those who are on bail will be released from bail and those who are in jail will be set at liberty.