Rambrichh Singh and Others vs Emperor

Harries, C.J.—These are two connected appeals arising out of a criminal case tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Bhagalpur. The appellants in the two appeals are Jadu Jha, Bhukhan Jha, Satyadeo alias Sahdeo Missir, Rama Dhanuk, Shaikh Gafoor, Mahabir alias Jung Bahadur Gope and Rambrichh Singh. The two appeals arise out of the same matter and can be disposed of in one judgment. The seven appellants together with three other persons who were acquitted, were tried on a number of charges arising out of a riot which took place on 16th January 1939, in village Singhar, P.S. Kishunganj, in the District of Bhagalpur. Jadu Jha was charged under Sections 302 and 148, I.P.C., the appellants Bukhan Jha, Satyadeo, Ramo Dhanuk and Mahabir were charged u/s 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C.; and the appellants Shaikh Gafoor and Rambrichh Singh were charged u/s 147 and Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. Jadu Jha was found not guilty of the charge u/s 302, I.P.C, but was convicted u/s 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148,1. P.C., and sentenced to transportation for life u/s 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C., and to two years rigorous imprisonment u/s 148, I.P.C., the sentences to run concurrently. The remaining appellants were found guilty u/s 302 read with Section 149and Section 147, I.P.C., and sentenced to transportation for life u/s 302 read with Section 149 and to one year''s rigorous imprisonment u/s 147, the sentences to run concurrently.

It is against these convictions and sentences that the present appeals have been preferred. There can be no doubt that a riot took place in the village of Singhar on 16th January 1939, and that during the course of that riot one Jhapta Tiar was killed and another person Mukhlal Chaudhuri severely injured. It is in respect of the death of Jhapta Tiar that the seven appellants have been convicted u/s 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. The case for the prosecution can be shortly stated as follows : In the village of Singhar there was a plot No. 657 of an area of about 1 1/2 bighas. This plot formed part of a larger area of 16 or 17 bighas, which was the bakasht land of Mahant Sundar Gir. This land has formerly formed part of a larger area which had been owned by one Sundar Mahto and his nephew Gorelal.

These two persons partitioned the land, and Sundar Mahto got the bakasht land on the north-west of the patti and Gorelal the land in the south-east portion. The appellant Jadu Jha and his brother Janardan Jha purchased the land of Sundar about eight years ago in execution of a money decree and the entire interest of Gorelal was purchased by Mahant Sundar Gir in 1933. The plot in question, it is said, formed part of the land allotted to Gorelal in this partition and therefore became the property of the mahant. In 1934 the mahant obtained dakhaldehani of the property and since then, it is said, he has been in khas possession of the same. In the year 1935 the appellant Jadu Jha undoubtedly laid claim to this bakasht land of Gorelal alleging that the latter had given it to him in raiyati settlement. There were proceedings u/s 144, Criminal P.C., between the appellant Jadu Jha and the mahant; but these proceedings were eventually compromised and the appellant Jadu Jha gave up all claims to the area of 16 bighas of bakasht land which included plot No. 657 which is the important plot in this case.

According to the prosecution, on the morning of 16th January 1939, Satto Kuar, the mahant''s tahsildar, sent off ten ploughs and ploughmen together with two peons, Jhapta Tiar and Mukhlal, to plough the bakasht land. According to the prosecution, Jhapta Tiar was a man of another village who had been in the mahant''s employ as a sipahi for about two months. The party arrived at Singhar and commenced to plough plot No. 657. The prosecution allege that shortly afterwards Jadu Jha at the head of a mob of about forty or fifty men came from Jadu Jha''s basa, about a quarter of a mile to the north-west of the field, and approached Jhapta Tiar. Jadu Jha is said to have asked Jhapta Tiar why he was ploughing the land, and the latter replied that he was entitled to plough his master''s land. Thereupon, it is said, Jadu, who was armed with a spear, came towards Jhapta, who ran towards the south.

The mob pursued him, caught him up and Jadu speared him below the right arm pit, and the appellant Mahabir struck him on the head with a garasa. Jhapta fell down whereupon the mob joined in beating him. After disposing of Jhapta, it is said that the mob turned their attention to Mukhlal and that Jadu Jha speared him in the stomach, whereas others struck him with pharsa, bhala and lathi. After Mukhlal had fallen down, the mob attempted to lift him up, but this they failed to do. The learned Sessions Judge remarks that "Mukhlal is a man of altogether unusual physique and of colossal bulk," and for this reason it is suggested that the mob could not move him.

The appellant Jadu and his followers then returned to Jhapta Tiar, who was by then dead and picked up the body and carried it to an orchard of Bhubneshwar Singh. There, it is said, they wrapped the body in a cloth, placed it in a bullock cart and took it to the basa of Jadu Jha. After that four or five members of the mob returned to the field which was covered with long paddy stubble, and they set fire to it. It is suggested by the prosecution that they did this in order to conceal the blood marks caused by the attacks on Jhapta and Mukhlal.

The two peons, Jhapta and Mukhlal were seated on the boundaries of the plot some distance from each other and some distance from the ploughmen who were actually ploughing. The latter, it is said, ran away some little distance and witnessed the whole occurrence. One of them, namely Shyamlal (P.W. 1), went to Sonbarsa, where Satto Kuar, the mahant''s tahsildar, was and reported to him what had occurred. Satto Kuar, it is said, immediately proceeded on horseback to the Police Station at Kishunganj, which was about six miles away, and at 11.30 A.M. he made a first information report. In this report Satto Kuar mentions that he had sent the ploughmen together with Jhapta and Mukhlal to plough the land and that the appellants Jadu Jha, Pukhan Missir, Gafoor Mia, Sahdeo Missir, Mahabir Gop and another person Uma Missir who was acquitted together with 40 or 50 men came on to the plot armed with bhala, garasa and lathi and began to assault the two peons. He mentions that this mob caused in juries to Mukhlal with bhala and garasa and assaulted Jhapta with the same weapons.

He further mentioned that he could not say where they had carried Jhapta from the spot and said that the latter was so severely injured that he might well be dead. He added that the accused persons were grievously hurt and that the ploughmen were witnesses of the occurrence.

According to the prosecution, just as the Assistant Sub Inspector had completed the recording of this report, the appellant Mahabir arrived at the thana and made another report. According to Mahabir''s report, Satto Kuar together with about a hundred men came to Singhar armed with bhalas, garasas and lathis and went to the house of the appellant Jadu Jha. It is said that they used force, whereupon the appellants Gafoor Mia, Jhapta Tiar, Bukhan Jha, Baso Missir and the informant defended themselves. In this assault Jhapta Tiar is said to have been struck down and killed.

Mahabir alleged that he had been struck with a spear and that he had an injury on the left thumb. It will be seen that according to this report the deceased man Jhapta Tiar was said to be a servant of Jadu Jha and not of Mahant Sundar Gir.

The police took up investigation and visited the scene of the riot and found that part of the stubble had been burnt as alleged by the prosecution. According to the police, blood-stained earth was found in places in spite of the fires, and this earth was later found to be stained with human blood by the chemical examiner and imperial serologist. The police came to the conclusion that the version given in Satto Kuar''s report was the correct one, and accordingly proceedings were brought against the seven appellants and three others. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place between a mob of 40 or 50 led by the appellant Jadu Jha on the one hand and two peons of Mahant Sundar Gir on the other hand. It is not alleged that the ten ploughmen took any part in the proceedings. The motive for the attack is said to be the appellants'' desire to recover this bakasht land which he had claimed in 1935 to be his property.

It is difficult to believe that the riot was the result of any claim made by the appellant Jadu Jha to this property. As I have stated earlier, it was the case for the prosecution that this property had given rise to proceedings u/s 144, Criminal P.C., and that those proceedings had been compromised. By that compromise Jadu Jha acknowledged that the mahant was entitled to khas possession of this land, and that being so, there appears to be no reason why the appellant Jadu Jha should have suddenly laid claim to the land. There are indications in this case which suggest that the trouble between the villagers of Singhar and the mahant was far more acute than the prosecution suggest. It was admitted by the witnesses for the prosecution that the mahant''s land had been previously cultivated by bataidars and that the mahant over a period of time had succeeded in ejecting these persons.

Further, it must be remembered that Jadu Jha and some of the other appellants were prominent members of the local Congress organization and were taking an active part in the Kisan movement. There was undoubtedly enmity between Jadu Jha and the mahant and litigation had taken place between them. In such circumstances it may well be that the occurrence which took place on the morning of 15th January 1939, was something different from that suggested by the prosecution. It is more likely that this was an occurrence between kisans demanding possession of bakasht lands and the malik who was denying such possession. From the evidence of Satto Kuar (P.W. 2) it would appear that he did not expect any trouble on the morning in question : hence he only sent two peons Jhapta Tiar deceased and Mukhlal. It is to be observed however that these two per-sons were of somewhat unusual character. Jhapta Tiar is admitted to have been an absconder in a murder case whereas according to the Sessions Judge, Mukhlal was a man of extraordinary physique who might well have been a retired wrestler, though Mukhlal denied this. However, if only two peons were sent, it does suggest that no trouble was anticipated on the morning in question.

I am however far from satisfied that this was an occurrence between a mob on the one hand and two peons on the other. At 11 A.M., that is half an hour before Satto Kuar made his report, Lalji (P.W. 20) chaukidar of the village reported at the thana that there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace between Jadu Jha and Mahant Sundar Gir and that both parties had collected lathials. He concluded by saying that he could not say what was the cause of the trouble. Lalji had gone to the thana on foot, and it is fairly clear that he must have left the village immediately before the riot started. In the report he clearly says that both sides had collected lathials. The learned Sessions Judge does not attach any great importance to this report and he regards it as an exaggeration on the part of the chaukidar. The learned Judge thought that Lalji having seen Jhapta Tiar and Mukhlal with the ploughmen might well have thought that the mahant had gathered together lathials. Lalji chaukidar gave evidence and he undoubtedly resiled from his earlier statement.

In the witness box he said that he had seen a number of men at Jadu Jha''s house and more men on the mahant''s land. According to him, this was the sole reason why he went to the thana to make a report. When it was put to him that he had mentioned that both sides had collected lathials, he denied having ever made such a statement. The police, on the other hand, had to admit that such a statement had been made and recorded. If both sides had collected lathials on this particular morning, then it is clear that the prosecution have given a false version of what occurred.

That the occurrence was something different from that suggested by the prosecution is also indicated in the first information report made by Satto Kuar. The names of the accused are given as Jadu Jha, Gafoor Mian, Bhukhan, Satdeo Missir, Mahabir Gop, Uma Missir and 40 or 50 men more, residents of villages Karawan, Sonbarsa and Tilakpur. These are villages lying at a distance of two or three miles from Singhar, and if the mob consisted of persons from other villages, the probabilities are that this was part of the kisan agitation and not a private quarrel between Jadu Jha and the mahant.

Another important statement in the first information report is that the accused persons have been grievously hurt. It is not suggested now by the prosecution that any of the accused persons were hurt, and indeed they could not have been hurt if the prosecution version be true. As I have stated, the account now given by the prosecution of the affair is an unprovoked attack by a large mob upon two persons who attempted to run away. There is however the clearest statement in the first information report that "the accused persons have been grievously hurt." The Assistant Government Advocate who appeared for the Crown attempted to explain away this difficulty by saying that the word used was not "accused" but "injured." In short he says the sentence ought to read "the injured persons have been grievously hurt," and it is to be observed that the first information report was so translated in the Court below and that was the translation which was placed before the Sessions Judge. Accordingly the Sessions Judge does not deal with this aspect of the case.

The word used in this sentence is mojrim and there can be no doubt whatsoever that that word means "accused" or "offenders." It cannot possibly mean "injured." The Assistant Government Advocate suggested that the word might be majrooh which means "injured"; but it is clear that the word written is not majrooh but mojrim.

Mr. Jafar Imam, who has argued this case with great ability on behalf of the main appellants, has contended that the word majrooh is not a word which any person in that locality would be likely to use and that in any event an Assistant Sub Inspector would never use the word mojrim when he meant injured persons. According to Mr. Jafar Imam, mojrim is a word in common use, whereas majrooh is not. It would be impossible for me to arrive at any decision upon this question but for the fact that I had the advantage of sitting with my learned brother Fazl Ali J., who has a wide knowledge of the language and of all districts in this province. He is satisfied that a Sub Inspector could never use the word mojrim to mean injured. It has only one meaning and that is "accused persons or offenders."

If Satto Kuar stated that accused persons had been grievously hurt, then it is obvious that there were lathials on the side of the mahant and that a fight had taken place, between two armed mobs. This is, of course, denied by the prosecution; but, in my view, the statement that accused persons had been grievously hurt can only be explained on the ground that there had been a fight between armed parties. If such was the occurrence, then it is clear that the case for the prosecution is wholly false. There are other indications in the first information report that the document is not a genuine one. Counsel who appeared with counsel for the Crown in the Court below also appeared with the Assistant Government Advocate in this case, and according to him, the original document was never inspected thoroughly by anybody in the Court below. As I have stated, a translation had been prepared which was before the learned Sessions Judge.

A mere glance at the first information report will show that additions have been made to it. The report of the occurrence is written on both sides of the page, and the first page ends with these words

after one hour Shyamlal Missir came running to the muth and reported that Mukhlal Singh peon and Mohan Mandal alias Jhapta Tiar had gone to get the land ploughed.

On the reverse side of the sheet the report was continued, and it is clear that the first word on the reverse side is usme. The opening sentence on the reverse side of the sheet can be translated,

thereupon, or in that affair, the accused persona Jadu Jha and others caused injuries to Mukhlal Singh by assaulting him with bhala and garasa, &c.

However, above the first line on the reverse side of the page have been inserted three lines which have been written very close together. The lines in the remainder of the report are well and evenly spaced, but these three lines are squeezed in the narrow space between the line beginning with us me and the top of the page. What appears in the three lines written in that narrow space are the words

Jadu Jha, Bhukhan Missir, Gafoor Mian, Sahdeo Missir, Mahabir Gop, Uma Missir and forty or fifty men more came armed with bhala, garasa and lathi and began to assault him.

In short, the names of the accused other than Jadu Jha all appear in these three lines which have been squeezed in at the very top of the page. As I have stated, a cursory glance at this document is enough to show that these three lines could never have been written by a person taking down Satto Kuar''s statement in the ordinary course of his duty. The spacing is entirely different and the handwriting is smaller, and it is clear that when these three lines were written it was obvious to the mind of the writer that he had very little space in which to write them.

It is inconceivable that if Satto Kuar knew the names of the accused, he would have omitted to mention them when the report was first recorded. If this report as originally recorded did not contain the names of Bhukhan Missir, Gafoor Mian, Sahdeo Missir, Mahabir Gop and Uma Missir, then it must have been deliberately altered in order to strengthen the case for the prosecution. It cannot be overlooked that after this report was recorded the appellant Mahabir arrived and made another report, and in that report he mentions not only that he was present but also that the appellants Gafoor Mian and Bhukhan Jha were also there. It was strongly urged by Mr. Jafar Imam that the names of these appellants were added in the thana after it became known from Mahabir that Bhukhan, Gafoor and Mahabir were present in the occurrence. It is quite impossible for me to come to any conclusion as to when and why these names were added; but I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind that the only name which appeared in this report when it was first recorded, was the name of Jadu Jha. The report has undoubtedly been altered and the names of other appellants interpolated therein.

Column 2 on the front page of the first information report also shows that altera tions had been made. This is the column in which the names and residences of the accused are given : and it is clear that the name of Mahabir Gop was added in this column. Whoever filled this column first wrote five names, Jadu, Bhukhan, Gafoor, Sahdeo and Uma, and numbered them 1 to 5. Between the name of "Sahdeo" and "Uma" the name of "Mahabir Gop" has been added and numbered 5 and the original No. 5 which stood opposite Uma''s name has clearly been altered to 6. This also shows that there were alterations made in this report of which the prosecution have offered no explanation whatsoever. The attention of the Court was also drawn to another addition on the first page. On the last line of the first page of the report it is stated that Mukhlal Singh peon and Mohan Mandal had gone to get the land ploughed. Underneath the name "Mohan Mandal" appears the words "uruf Jhapatu Tiar." According to the prosecution, the deceased Jhapta Tiar was also known as Mohan Mandal, and it may well be that this was an honest mistake. No attempt seems to have been made to alter the words first written in the report and the words "uruf Jhapatu Tiar" are written just under the words Mohan Mandal. I therefore do not attach any great importance to this alteration.

However, the insertion of names in this first information report does throw the very gravest doubt upon the genuineness of the case for the prosecution.

That some of the names of the appellants mentioned in the report could not have been given by Satto Kuar, is, in my view, clear from the evidence. It must be remembered that Satto Kuar was not an eye-witness and that he merely stated what Shyamlal Missir (P.W. 1) had reported to him. Shyamlal in evidence had to admit that he had not named either Satdeo or Uma to the Police. He stated that he did not know their names at that time and then said that he forgot whether he gave their names to Satto Kuar or spoke of them as the sons of Khuddar. If he did not know their names at the time, he could not have named them to Satto Kuar, and if he made any reference to these two men he could only have mentioned them as the sons of Khuddar. Even if he had said that the sons of Khuddar were there, such could not account for Uma being named by Satto Kuar because he is not a son of Khuddar. Shyamlal, when he was called to identify Uma and Satyadeo, could not distinguish between them, and before the committing Magistrate he wrongly pointed out Bhubhan for Satyadeo, which suggests that he knew neither.

It seems clear from Shyamlal''s evidence that he could not have named either Satyadeo or Uma, yet both names appear in the interpolation in the first information report. The prosecution can offer no explanation as to how these names appear except that Shyamlal must have given them to Satto Kuar. It is clear from Satto Kuar''s own evidence that he had no information whatsoever except that given him by Shyamlal; but in spite of that names appear in the first information report, which Shyamlal could never have given and those names appear in the mo9t suspicious circumstances. That being so, I cannot accept this first information report as a genuine document; and that being so, grave doubts arise in my mind about the truth of the case for the prosecution.

The Assistant Sub Inspector came on to the scene later in the afternoon, and during night he recorded the statements of the various ploughmen. These ploughmen are all servants of the mahant, and therefore their evidence must be scrutinized with great care. If some one in authority had determined to make out a case against the appellants, these unfortunate ploughmen would have no alternative but to support it. I would therefore not attach any great weight to the evidence of the ploughmen unless it is corroborated by independent testimony. As I have stated, the ploughmen all support the prosecution version that this was an unprovoked attack upon two peons; and this version, as I have already pointed out, is most unlikely having regard to the report made at the thana at 10-30 A.M. that morning by Lalji chaukidar (P.W. 20). The fact that Lalji chaukidar in the witness-box denied having stated that both sides, had collected lathials, also suggests that the prosecution, for reasons best known to themselves, were not putting forward a true version.

Three witnesses made it clear that in this mob were men from Karawan, though they undoubtedly tried to resile from that version later. Jahuri (P.W. 19), a raiyat of the village, in a statement on oath made u/s 164, Criminal P.C., mentions a mob from Karawan which was joined by Jadu''s men. In evidence in the Sessions Court, he denied the truth of this and could not remember whether he had ever told the Magistrate when his statement was recorded u/s 164. Medni (P.W. 21), another raiyat of the village, also stated to the Magistrate that a mob from Karawan also surrounded the deceased man Jhapta Tiar. In the Sessions Court he says that what he meant was that a mob came from the Karawan side of the Basa which joined Jadu''s mob. Shyamlal (P.W. l) mentioned to the Magistrate in his examination u/s 164, Criminal P.C., that a mob of forty or fifty men came from Karawan and Singhar. Before the committing Magistrate he said that the mob came from Jadu''s Basa, and in the Sessions Court he said that the mob-came with Jadu from the north-west and denied that he had stated in his examination u/s 164 that the mob came from Karawan as well as Singhar. It is clear that these witnesses did at first say that the mob consisted of men from Karawan as well as of Singhar but that they have denied this presumably, with a view to supporting: the case of the prosecution that this was a mob assisting Jadu in a personal quarrel.

All the indications show that this was a riot between kisans on the one hand and the zamindar''s men on the other. Unfortunately at that time feelings were running high between the parties, and such an occurrence might well have taken place. If that be the true view of the occurrence, then there is the real danger that Jadu might be mentioned as the leader whether he was present or not. The learned Sessions-Judge fully realized the danger of acting on the evidence of interested witnesses, but in his view the main case for the prosecution was supported by the evidence of witnesses upon whom reliance could properly be placed. (After discussing the evidence his Lordship proceeded.) The injured peon. Mukhlal is obviously an interested witness,'' and the Sessions Judge very rightly points out that it would be dangerous to act upon his evidence without corroboration. It appears to me that there is no independent evidence corroborating any of these prosecution witnesses and therefore in the circumstances of this case it would be dangerous to act upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses.

It is unnecessary to consider at any length the various versions put forward by the accused. As I have stated earlier in the judgment, Mahabir, in the report which he made, alleged that the deceased man, Jhapta Tiar, was a peon of the appellant Jadu Jha. The learned Sessions Judge was satisfied upon the evidence that this was untrue and that Jhapta Tiar was in fact a servant of the mahant. In my view, the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that Jhapta Tiar was a servant of the mahant and that he was killed on the plot in question and not at the Basa of Jadu Jha. However even if the version put forward by the defence be wholly untrue, yet the prosecution must establish beyond all reasonable, doubt that the case put forward by them is true.

In my judgment, the riot which took place on the mahant''s land on the morning of 16th January 1939, was a riot between a body of kisans on the one hand and lathials of the mahant on the other. It may be that some of the appellants, if not all of them, were present in that affair; but on the evidence before mo I cannot hold positively that their guilt has been established. Once the case, as presented by the prosecution, is found to be false, there is no evidence before this Court upon which any of the appellants can be convicted. If a fight took place between two armed mobs, then there is no evidence as to what actually occurred. A mere suspicion that the appellants or some of them were present can form no basis for a conviction. It is true that even before the interpolations in the first information report, the name of Jadu Jha is mentioned; but once the Court has any doubt about the truth of the version even as first recorded, then Jadu Jha is entitled to the benefit of that doubt. In my view the guilt of the appellants has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, and that being so, they must be acquitted. In the result therefore I would allow these appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences passed upon the appellants and acquit them on all the charges. They must be set at liberty forthwith unless required by the authorities upon any other charge.

Fazl Ali, J.

I agree.