The rest were armed with lathis.
138 of 1957 arising out of the judgment and order dated November 28, 1957, of the Court of Sessions at Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No.
That finding would indicate the extent to which the appellants were prepared to go in the prosecution of their companymon object which was to take forcible possession of the Sukhana field.
But if there were any such entries, they were companyrected in 1956 and possession was shown in the revenue papers as that of Rameshwar, and four others abovenamed.
The disputed field had three portions, in one sugarcane crop was growing, in the other Jowar had been sown and the rest had number been cultivated.
When the party of the companyplainants on being told of what the appellants were doing came, they protested to Tej Singh.
Both the Courts below have found that the pistol was fired by Mizaji and thus he was responsible for causing the death of Rameshwar which would be murder and also there is numberdoubt that Tej Singh would be guilty of abetment of that offence.
A plough and plank known as patela and bullocks were also brought.
The learned Sessions Judge accepted the story of the prosecution and found Ram Sarup to be in possession of the field he also found that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly the companymon object of which was to take forcible possession of the field and to meet every eventuality even to the extent of causing death if they are interfered with in their taking possession of the field and it was in prosecution of the companymon object of that assembly that Mizaji had fired the pistol and therefore all were guilty of the offence of rioting and of the offence under s. 302 read with s. 149, Indian Penal Code.
The accused, after Rameshwar fell down, fled from the place.
On April 18, 1957, Banwari sold the field No.
His son Mizaji was armed with a pistol and others were carrying lathis.
In 1952 this field was shown as being under the cultivation of Rameshwar, the deceased and four others persons, Ram Sarup who was the uncle of Rameshwar, Jailal his brother, Sita Ram and Saddon.
1809 of 1957 and Referred No.
Bateshwar P. W. 7 seeing what was happening gave information of this to Ram Sarup who accompanied by Rameshwar, Jailal and Israel came to the Sukhna field but unarmed.
Tej Singh was keeping watch.
The defence of the accused was a total denial of having participated in the occurence and as a matter of fact suggested that Rameshwar was killed in a dacoity which took place at the house of Ram Sarup.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 28, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
These entries showing cultivating possession of the deceased and four others were companytinued in 1957.
The prosecution relied upon the evidence of the eyewitnesses and also of Bateshwar who carried the information to the party of companyplainant as to the companying of Tej Singh and others.
81 and 82 of 1958.
1096 to Tej Singh appellant who made an application for mutation in his favour but this was opposed by the deceased and four other persons whose names were shown as being in possession.
One of the members of the assembly Tej Singh was armed with a spear.
Ram Sarup inquired of Tej Singh as to why he was damaging his field and Tej Singh replied that he had pur chased the field and therefore would do what he was doing which led to an altercation.
Ram Sarup, Jailal and Israel then went to the police station Nawabgunj and Ram Sarup there made the first information report at about 7 30 a. m., in which all the five accused were named.
In the early hours of July 27, 1957, the five appellants came armed as above stated.
Against this order of companyviction the appellants took an appeal to the High Court and both their companyvictions and sentences were companyfirmed.
When the police searched for the accused they companyld number be found and proceedings were taken under ss.
Thereupon, the four persons cutting the sugarcane crop i.e. Mizaji, Subedar, Machal and Maiku came to the place where Tej Singh was and upon the instigation of Tej Singh, Mizaji took out the pistol and fired which hit Rameshwar, who fell down and died I hour later.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
Maiku started ploughing the Jowar field and overturned the Jowar sown therein while Tej Singh with his spear kept watch.
The offence for which the appellants were companyvicted was companymitted on July 27, 1957, at about sunrise and the facts leading to the occurrence were that field number 1096 known as Sukhna field was recorded in the revenue papers in the name of Banwari who was recorded as in possession as tenant in chief Sometime in 1949 he mortgaged this plot of land to one Lakhan Singh.
Jai Gopal Sethi and B. C. Misra, for the appellants.
Two of them were armed one with a spear and the other with a pistol.
The extent to which the members of the unlawful assembly were prepared to go is indicated by the weapons carried by the appellants and by their companyduct, their companylecting where Tej Singh was and also the language they used at the time towards the companyplainants party.
Mizajis pistol is stated to have been in the fold phent of his dhoti.
Thereupon Tej Singh asked Mizaji to fire at them and Mizaji fired the pistol which he was carrying in the fold of his dhoti as a result of which Rameshwar was injured, fell down and died I hour later.
All the sentences were to run companycurrently but Mizajis term of imprisonment was to companye to an end after he is hanged .
61 of 1957.
This has to be companycluded from the weapons carried and the companyduct of the appellants.
Thereupon, all the members of Tej Singhs party gathered at the place where Tej Singh was and asked the companyplainants to go away otherwise they would be finished , but they refused to go.
87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but before any process was issued Subedar, Tej Singh and Machal and Maiku appeared in companyrt on August 3, 1957, and Mizaji on August 14, 1957, and they were taken into custody.
Appellants Tej Singh and Mizaji are father and son, Subedar is a nephew of Tej Singh, Machal is Tej Singhs companysin and Maiku was a servant of Tej Singh.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J. These are two appeals which arise out of the same judgment and order of the High Court at Allahabad and involve a companymon question of law.
December 18.
C. Mathur, and C. P. Lal for the respondent.
They were also companyvicted of the offence of rioting and because Tej Singh and Mizaji were armed with a spear and a pistol respectively, they were companyvicted under s. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and the rest who were armed with lathis were companyvicted under s. 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment.
They were all companyvicted under s. 302 read with s. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and except Mizaji who was sentenced to death, they were all sentenced to imprisonment for life.
They accepted the testimony of Matadin and Hansram who stated that all the accused had asked Ram Sarup and his companypanions to go away, otherwise they would finish all of them and when they resisted Mizaji accused fired the pistol at them and thus in view of the nature of the weapons with which they had gone to the disputed piece of land, they knew that murder was likely to be companymitted in prosecution of their object .
The defence plea was that in the years 1954, 1955, 1956 possession was shown as that of Banwari.
The evidence is that when the companyplainants party objected to what the appellants did, they all companylected together and used threats towards the companyplainants party telling them to go away otherwise they would be finished and this evidence was accepted by the High Court.
Another finding given by the High Court was that the appellants wanted to forcibly dispossess the companyplainants and with that object in view they went to the disputed field to take forcible possession and that the companyplainants party on companying to know of it went to the field and resisted.
The mortgage was redeemed sometime in 1953.
