Rajendra Prasad Singh and Others vs Emperor

Courtney-Terrell, C.J.—In this case Rajendra Prasad Singh has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Monghyr u/s 302, Penal Code, of the murder of one Janardan Singh. Together with this appeal there have been heard the appeals of Bacha Prasad Singh, Jogendra Narain Singh, Ramcharan Singh, Haricharan Singh, Satyanarain Singh and Dwarka Prasad Singh. These have been found guilty u/s 302 read with Section 149, Penal Code, and have been sentenced to transportation for life. Bacha Singh was further convicted u/s 148 and the remaining five u/s 147, Penal Code, but no separate sentences were passed.

The occurrence which gave rise to these charges arose out of a quarrel between the party of the appellants who are Rajputs and a party of Babhans of which the deceased man Janardan Singh was a member. The appellants are all related. Bacha is aged about 50 years and is the uncle of Rajendra and Jogendra who are brothers. The other appellants are also related to Bacha. The occurrence took place in village Borne in the Sader subdivision of Monghyr. There is there a bamboo grove which has been among other things, the subject of continual disputes between the Babhans and the Rajputs, but I see no reason to differ from the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge upon the materials before him that in fact the parties are entitled to joint possession of this grove. This however was not the view of the Babhans who were of the opinion that the party of the appellants had no right in the grove nor to cut bamboos.

It is not necessary for the decision of this appeal to go into the merits of the claims of the respective parties to the grove. (His Lordship then considered the evidence as to the occurrence and proceeded). Mr. Verma on behalf of all the appellants has properly confined himself in so far as the case of Rajendra is concerned to the contention that the case is not one to which Section 302 is properly applicable, that any conviction should have been u/s 304. Penal Code, and he has moreover urged that in view of the circumstances the case is not one to justify the infliction of the extreme penalty. As to the other appellants he has contended that while they might properly be convicted of rioting it is not a case for the application of Section 302 read with Section 149, Penal Code. He has moreover attacked the evidence as to the presence in the mob of the appellant Ramcharan.

I am quite unable to see how a conviction u/s 302, Penal Code, of Rajendra can possibly be avoided. The shotgun was fired at such close range that it could not have had other than a fatal effect and it is indicative of the intention of Rajendra that after firing at Janardan he reloaded the gun which was single barrelled and fired another shot at Natho.

On the other hand he is a young man and arrived upon the scene just as the quarrel between Buku and Bacha was becoming acute. He may well have thought that Janardan''s lathi would descend upon the head of his brother Jogendra and have discharged the gun in the heat of the moment. While these facts should not prevent a conviction for murder they are such as, in my opinion, should justify the Court in inflicting the lesser penalty of transportation for life.

The participation of the other appellants must now be dealt with. The gun was the property of Bacha and was kept in that man''s part of the Rajputs house. The second party of the Rajputs which arrived at the grove was called there by the sounds of the quarrel which had already begun. Bacha, the uncle, was already taking part in the dispute when they arrived and he, filled with rage when Buku pushed aside the man who was cutting bamboos, ordered the attack upon the Babhans notwithstanding the attempts by the constable and the chaukidar to keep the parties in a reasonable frame of mind. It is probable that none of the Rajputs was fully aware of the fact that before leaving the house Rajendra had fetched out Bacha''s gun and some cartridges and it is clear that his behaviour in shooting Janardan took them all by surprise. There is not enough evidence to convict them of going to a riot in the company of a man whom they knew to be armed with a gun.

On the other hand , Bacha had a pharsa and as he went out some minutes earlier every one must have been aware that he was so armed. I can see no indication that the appellants banded themselves together with the common object to kill anyone nor does the evidence indicate that Janardan was killed in pursuance of the common object of the others. His death was the result of the isolated act of Rajendra.

I consider that the learned Judge was wrong in convicting the appellants other than Rajendra u/s 302 read with Section 149, Penal Code. On the other hand I am quite satisfied that the appellants other than Rajendra and Bacha should be convicted u/s 147, Penal Code, and I would so convict them and sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The case of Bacha requires more severe treatment. While a member of the riotous assembly he was armed with a deadly weapon. Moreover his unreasonable behaviour was one of the principal causes of the occurrence. He should be convicted u/s 148. Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.

The case of Ramcharan gives me no difficulty. He was mentioned by the chaukidar who together with the constable went to lodge the first information and Natho also mentioned him. Neither the chaukidar nor Natho were cross-examined to show that they had made any mistake about identifying Ramcharan. He should be convinced u/s 147, Penal Code, and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment.

Scroope, J.

I agree.