Then there was a criminal prosecution of those prosecution witnesses in the case of assault brought by Bhorgu and ultimately there were proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. by the magistrate for keeping the peace between the two companytending parties.
Galpu Singh also took part in that mar pit on behalf of Chhotu, etc.
received good many injuries.
Some of the dacoits entered the premises and removed boxes companytaining ornaments and clothes.
The defence of the accused persons as disclosed in their examination under Section 342, Criminal P. C. and in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses was that they all had been implicated falsely on account of a pre existing enmity between the companyplain ants party to which belonged the prosecution witnesses who figure as eye witnesses to the occurrence and that of the accused Bhirghu Singh, who was one of the three companyvicted persons acquitted by the High Court.
On an alarm being raised by P.W 11, Surajbali Singh P.W. 3 , Balai Ahir number examined , Chhotu Singh P.W. 13 , Ramchandra Tiwari P.W. 6 , and Jagdish Singh P.W. 7 of the village arrived.
This resulted in a criminal case of assault in which Bhirgu figured as the companyplainant with certain injuries on the head and the prosecution witnesses aforesaid as the accused.
The three appellants along with three others including Bhirgu Singh were placed on trial for dacoity before the learned Sessions Judge of Azamgarh who companyvicted and sentenced all of them as aforesaid.
The Sub Inspector P. W. 14 arrived at the place of occurrence at 5 A.M. When he reached the spot, the companyplainant gave him a list of stolen property Ex.
This led to a companylision between the party of Laltas brother Bhirgu and the party to which the companyplainant belongs, namely, P.Ws.
P 6 dated 4 6 1951 at 3 15 A.M. The police station is about four miles from village Dangauli, where the occurrence is Said to have taken place.
The three appellants belong to the neighbouring village called Alipur.
It was suggested to the companyplainant in cross examination that Ramshankar, and other accused were more substantial people of a higher social status than he.
Those proceedings terminated after the occurrence in question.
A I do number remember.
2, 4, 11 and 12, the eye witnesses were Surajbali P. W. 3 , Ramchander P. W. 6 , Jagdish P.W. 7 and Jagtu P. W. 10 .
He took possession of them and drew up recovery lists.
The learned Judge gave the benefit of those observations only to the three accused belonging to the companyplainants village and number to the other three belonging to the adjoining village Alipur, and equally well known as partisans of Bhirgu aforesaid.
That case started prior to the dacoity and terminated after the occurrence.
3 and 6 aforesaid.
Because of this and because of other litigations I have been falsely implicated.
As more people of the village arrived, the dacoits made good their escape with their booty.
About three furlongs to the west of the house of the companyplainant he found three boxes and some torn pieces of cloth.
I lodged a companyplaint under Section 323, I.P.C. but I left out Kalpu because he had.
During the dacoity numberody told me name of anyone of Alipur.
This Lalta was said to have been adopted by Harbans Singh who had numberson.
Bhirgu had admitted in his statement under Section 342, Criminal P. C. as follows .
In that case Chhotus brother Ram Adhar and Rikhdeo father of Jagdish witness were also with me.
Dangauli, P.S. Mohammadabad at about midnight companymitted dacoity at the house of Kalapnath and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under Section 395, I.P.C., and within the companynizance of the companyrt of session, Azamgarh.
After the dacoity numberody gave me name of anyone of Alipur.
He adopted my brother Lalta Singh.
He also admitted that Bhirgu and Ramshankar were men of higher status than the companyplainant.
He sent the injured persons, namely, the companyplainant P.W. 1 , Suraj Ball Singh P.W. 3 and Ramchandra Tiwari P.W. 6 who all had simple injuries caused by a blunt weapon like a lathi.
Naturally, the other agnatic relations of Harbans, namely Surajbali P.W. 3 , Jagdish P.W. 7 and Chhotu P.W. 13 , who were said to be the first to turn up at the alarm of the dacoity raised by one of the inmates of the house as aforesaid, were number inclined to recognize the adoption and the legal companysequences of the adoption, namely, that Harbanss property should go to Lalta.
All the Thakurs of the village of occurrence are descendants of a companymon ancestor and all the Thakurs witnesses, and they are the majority of the prosecution witnesses of identification, are naturally agnatic relations.
It is admitted by the companyplainant, as also by some of the eye witnesses that these appellants were well known to them for the last six or seven years, so much so that even a pardanashin woman like P.W. 11 claims to have known the first appellant Ramshankar, from before the occurrence, though it would be difficult to believe that statement in view of the following admission made by her in cross examination Prior to dacoity I did number know any man of Alipur.
On appeal to the Allahabad High Court, the learned Judge acquitted three of them but maintained the companyviction and sentence of the three appellants.
So was Bhirgu, the principal accused in the group from that village itself.
But fortunately for the appellants, a clear question of law has been raised on the findings arrived at by the High Court.
The witness denied any such enmity but P.W. 4 Ramchander has admitted that there was such enmity.
Though he denied knowledge of Harbans having adopted Lalta, he admitted that a case was fought between Harbans and Bhirgu on the one side and his father, P.W. Chhotus brother and Surajbali on the other.
The case against the three accused persons belonging to the same village did number fail for paucity of evidence of identification, but because the companysiderable body of evidence was tainted testimony.
500 are said to have been looted away.
This happened two months prior to dacoity.
The occurrence of dacoity which was the subject matter of the charge against the appellants and others, is said to have taken place at the house of one Kalapnath Singh P.W. 1 , whom we shall call the companyplainant.
He had received good many other injuries as well.
3, 6, 7 and 13 had been specifically questioned and though they admitted those litigations before the Committing Magistrate, at the trial they either took shelter behind a failing memory or told a brazenfaced lie by denying that they had made such statements.
The charge framed against the six persons placed on trial did number indicate that those six persons along with other unknown persons had companymitted dacoity.
He interrogated the companyplainant and the other eyewitnesses, namely P.Ws.
The witness has further admitted that the members of the family of P.Ws.
Their case was that as they had helped Bhirghu Singh in his dispute and litigation with the party to which the companyplainant belongs they had also been falsely implicated.
Some of the dacoits also beat P.Ws.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by the companyrt on the said charge.
2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13 and got the statements of some of those witnesses recorded under Section 164, Criminal P. C. Ultimately he submitted a charge sheet as a result of which the six accused named in the first information report only were placed on their trial after the necessary companymitment proceedings.
Kalpu had also received injuries at his head during that marpit.
Bhirgu and Lalta are brothers.
My hand bone was also fractured.
Some of the dacoits beat the companyplainant, some of them kept watch on the three persons aforesaid and the others got the entrance opened by one of the female inmates of the house, Mt. Pyari P.W. 11 , the companyplainants sister in law.
After adoption Chhotu, Surajbali, Jagdish and others wanted to take possession of that field.
P.W. 7 was also severely cross examined and questions about enmity and his previous statements before the Committing Magistrate to a similar effect were put to him and he had the audacity to deny having made such a statement previously.
That these appellants were well known to the eye witnesses who deposed against them will be clear from the following facts as they emerge as a result of the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses.
He also admitted that in respect of Harbans land, a case under Section 145, Criminal P. C. was also fought between the same parties.
The charge against the six accused persons placed on the trial was in these terms That you on or about the 3/4 night of June 1951 in vil.
So far as Ramshankar the first appellant is companycerned, there is the further suggestion of enmity between him and Rambaz Singh admittedly the maternal uncles son of P.W. 2.
A criminal case had also been faught out?
He sent a written report to the police station at Mohammadabad, sub district Ghosi, through the village chowkidar P.W. 8 .
But P.W. 4 has in his cross examination admitted that as a matter of fact Ramshankar has a house made of bricks, that he has some zamindari and has cultivation of three ploughs.
The witness was companynered in cross examination after he had the audacity to deny in the earlier part of his cross examination that he had any litigation with Bhirgu about the property of Harbans Singh.
The dacoits are also said to have snatched away some ornaments from the neck of the companyplainants wife, Mt. Saraswati P.W. 12 .
The most damaging admission made by this witness, so far as the prosecution case is companycerned, is that the appellants had always helped Bhorgu in getting possession of the fields, referring to the dispute between Bhorgu as representing his brothers cause as against the prosecution witnesses aforesaid.
That report was treated as the first information Ex.
The appellants who belong to the adjoining village Alipur, also suggested the same defence.
For example, P.W. 1 was questioned in cross examination and answered as follows Q You stated before the Committing Magistrate After adoption a litigation took place between Bhirgu Singh and Surajbali, Chhotu and Jagdish P.Ws.?
He had a field.
Though at first he was inclined number to admit that there was a criminal prosecution also in respect of those very lands, he ultimately admitted that Bhirgu had brought a criminal case in which he the witness also was an accused in respect of the occurrence in which the companyplainant had received injuries on his head.
Surajbali and Chhotu arid the members of his family, as also Ram Adhar brother of Chhotu figured as accused persons in that criminal prosecution.
This defence was taken before the Committing Court also and the prosecution witnesses like the companyplainant and P.Ws.
There is thus ample evidence on the record as found by the High Court also, that there was litigation in respect of the property of Harbans between the party led by Bhirgu, brother of Lalta who was adopted by Harbans on the one side and the prominent prosecution witnesses in this case on the other.
He also found a lantern hanging at the door of which he took possession.
Similarly Surajbali P.W. 3 gave the same answer to the following question in cross examination Q You stated there Committing Magistrate I had litigation with Bhirgu Singh.
Harbans had numberissue.
A I do number remember.
It is numbereworthy that only the six persons named in the first information report were placed on their trial, though 14 to 16 persons are said to have participated in the dacoity.
The report is to the effect that between 1 and 2 A.M., when the companyplainant, his brother in law P.W. 2 and his servant Baljore P.W. 4 were sleeping on separate companys in the open companyrtyard in front of the residential house, they were awakened by the intrusion of 14 or 15 persons armed with lathis and spears.
The litigation first began before the Tahsildar, presumably on the revenue side.
But he stoutly denied that.
It was also alleged that the dacoits had been lighting electric torches in the light of which, as also of a lantern kept burning at the door, the dacoits were recognized and the appellants along with three others of the very same village of the companyplainant were named as the accused and articles worth Rs.
Sinha, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court companyfirming those of the Sessions Judge of Azamgarh so far as the appellants were companycerned, companyvicting them under Section 395, I.P.C., and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each.
The Sub Inspector inspected the locality and found things scattered here and there.
He had also denied that Ramshankar had a brick built house, was a zamindar and had cultivation of three ploughs.
None of the unknown dacoits was placed on trial, apparently because numbere companyld be identified by any of the eye witnesses during the investigation.
3, 7, and 13.
Marpit took place in respect of that field between myself, other members of my family on the one hand and Chhotu, Surajbali and Jagdish on the other.
