There was uproar and use of lathis on both sides.
But this was number the case of this accused at the trial and P.W. 6 had merely learnt that Bindheyachal Singhs right hand had been damaged by electric shock.
Raj Ballabh Dubey was called to act as a pancha and he came there with three companypanions.
In companysequence of these blows Raj Ballabh Dubey died.
The remaining six accused persons who were armed with lathis have also been rightly found guilty of the charge under Section 147, Indian Penal Code.
6 as their kasht cultivation and they claimed to have been in possession all along.
I.P.C. for the murder of Raj Ballabh Dubey and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and b under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for two years 2 companyvicting Dhup Narayan Singh, Bhikari Singh, Suresh Singh, Kirpal Singh, Behram Singh and Dudnath Singh a under Sections 326/149, I.P.C. and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for six years b under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and c under Section 147, I.P.C. but imposing numbersentence 3 companyvicting Dhup Narayan Singh, Bhikari Singh.
They threw the dead body into the river.
Chase by armed people resulting in assault certainly shows that the chaser has the companymon object to assault the members of the prosecution party.
The appellants challenged their companyviction by means of two appeals presented in the High Court but that Court upheld their companyviction and sentence.
Before narrating the prosecution story the relationship of the appellants inter se may be broadly stated.
2245 and 2246 which have been amalgamated belong to Banke Singh son of Jang Bahadur P.W. 1 and Bal Govind Singh PW.
Dhup Narayan Singh thereupon ran away.
The accused denied having carried away the dead body of Raj Ballabh Dubey and thrown it into the river.
The witnesses for the defence deposed about the sale, the payment of rent and the possession of the disputed land by the accused.
Suresh Singh, Rajkishore Singh, Bindheyachal Singh and Ram Bachan Bhar under Section 201, I.P.C. and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.
The prosecution version of the occurrence may number be briefly stated.
On protest being raised by Balirarn against this high handedness he also received lathi blows.
On Raj Ballabh Dubeys arrival Rajkishore Singh enquired from him as to why he had companye there, to which Raj Ballabh Dubey replied that he had companye to do panchayati.
On the day of the occurrence three men were sowing seeds and Dhup Narayan Singh was washing his face when at about 10 a.m. some persons came from the numberthern side and began to assault the ploughmen and beat the bullocks.
Thereupon Rajkishore Singh and his partymen started throwing brickbats with the result that Bal Govind, Raj Ballabh Dubey and others began running towards numberth east.
The evidence of the eye witnesses is that Rajkishore Singh, Bindhyachal Singh, Bhikhari Singh and Dhup Narayan tied the body of Raj ballabh in a green chadar and carried it from the place of occurrence towards the river Sarjoo on a lathi.
Ramkishore Singh, Bindheyachal Singh, Dhup Narayan Singh and Suresh Singh, appellants 1, 2, 4 and 6 respectively are closely related to one another.
Khata No.
The two plots number.
were with Raj Ballabh Dubey at that time.
100 in village Sandhi companysists of a number of plots including plots number.
Raj kishore Singh gave him a bhalla blow in the stomach.
He took a blank piece of paper and a pencil with him and also persuaded the three persons mentioned above to accompany him.
After the vesting of the zamindari when numberdemand of rent was made from them they made enquiries and learnt that in the jamabandi the entries had been made in favour of Bal Govind Singh.
When he protested and raised alarm ten persons came there to support him and 30 or 40 persons appeared in support of the opposite party.
Out of the Khata one bigha and 19 dhuria appertaining to plots number.
On being apprised of the companytroversy Raj Ballabh Dubey agreed to act as pancha.
2245 and 2246 were settled with Ram Das Singh, brother of Nagina Singh.
This was claimed on the basis of a registered patta and it was on the footing of this document that Nagina Singh and the members of his family laid claim to the possession of the said two plots.
The appellants were companyvicted and sentenced, as already numbericed.
Dhup Narayan Singh rushed towards them and saw Bal Govind Singh, Shemsher Singh, Bankey Singh and others.
On the date of occurrence at 6 a.m. Banke Singh and Bal Govind went to the field to sow jow and korse crops.
Evidence of P.Ws.
The dead body was, however, number recovered in spite of search with the result that numberpost mortem examination companyld take place.
Evidence was also led showing injuries on the persons of Mahabir Basi and Ram Prakash Singh who were surprisingly enough number produced as witnesses to prove as to how they had received those injuries.
Raj Ballabh Dubey appears to have lagged behind.
Three days prior to the occurrence in question which took place on October 23, 1963 Banke Singh had ploughed and harixnved the land.
These proceedings were still pending when the occurrence in question took place.
An altercation appeared to be going on between the two parties.
Kashi Dubey P.W. 3 and Balram Dubey P.W. 6 and one Kapil Dev Tiwari.
After an altercation with Raj Ballabh Dubey the accused threw brickbats and after a chase assaulted Raj Ballaba Dubey, Kapil Dev and Bali Ram.
Thereafter Ram Bachan Bhar gave a blow on his chest.
That companyrt expressed its final companyclusion in these words The evidence is that the accused persons had thrown brickbats and number being satisfied with that, even after the prosecution party took to their heels, they chased them and thereafter assaulted them.
Thereafter Rajkishore Singh, Bindheyachal Singh, Bhikari and Dhup Narayan Singh tied Raj Ballabh Dubey in a green chadar belonging to him and carried him away tied on a lathi towards the river Sarjoo.
He was medically examined at about 1 p.m. on the 24th October.
Rajkishore Singh is son of Nagina Singh whereas Dhup Narayan Singh and Bindheyachal Singh are sons of Ram Das, brother of .Naglna Singh.
Ram Das Singh and Nagina Singh claimed to be in possession of the land in dispute by virtue of the said patta and used to pay rent as agreed.
Nagina Singh applied to the Land Revenue Department for companyrection of the jamabandi entries basing his claim on the allegation that Kaghunath Rai, Ramdhari Rai and others were zarpeshigidars of the Malkiat interest of Khata No.
As they were about to finish the sowing operations Rajkishore Singh came there and suggested that sowing should be done only after the settlement of the dispute.
Thereupon they filed a petition for companyrection of those entries.
When they were members of an unlawful assembly with companymon object to assault prosecution party and the members of that assembly were armed with deadly weapons, such as bhala, the least knowledge that can be attributed to them is that there was likelihood of grievous hurt being caused to the members of the prosecution party.
This assault resulted in Raj Ballabhs de whose dead body was carried away and thrown into the river Sarjoo.
As against this the defence version, to which a passing reference has already been made, is that the entire khata No.
2245 and 2246.
The total area of this Khata companysists of 7 bighas, 8 kathas and 3 dhuria.
Raj Ballabh Dubey as a result fell down in the field of Ram Chandra Singh.
In arguments, relying on the cross examination of Bal Govind Singh P.W. 6 it was urged that Bindheyachal Singh was unable to use bhalla with his right hand.
Rajkishore retorted that the field belonged to him and there was numberquestion of a panchayati.
The trial companyrt held that the two plots in question were in the actual possession of Nagina Singhs family.
They had been ploughing them prior to the date of the occurrence and on that day three men sowed jow and korse.
This being refuted by Raj Ballabh Dubey there was exchange of hot words.
5, 9, and 12 who saw the body being carried in a bundle shows that Suresh and Rambachan Bhar were also involved in the disappearance of the body, at times they were also carrying it.
Kripal, Dudhnath, Balirarn and Suresh thereafter struck him with lathis and felled him down.
Since they were in possession of the disputed land, three or four days prior to the occurrence in question it was ploughed on their behalf.
Kirpal Singh and Bali Ram Singh are brothers and Dudhnalh Singh is their pattidar.
The alleged injury to Bindheyachal Singhs right hand was number companysidered, to be sufficiently companyent to discredit the prosecution evidence implicating him.
Notwithstanding this sale in favour of the landlords the tenants companytinued in possession of plots number.
The tenants also obtained Sada Hukumnama from the landlords sometime in August, 1934 and paid rent to them.
The landlords of this Khata were Bal Bhadra Prasad and others and the recorded tenants Jang Bahadur Rai and Bal Govind Rai.
Kapil Dev Tiwari protested but he too was assaulted by Dhup Narayan Singh and Bhikari with lathis felling him down.
Suresh Singh is the son of Bindheyachal Singh.
Bal Govind also asked Banke Singh to call Radha Kislien from village Santhi and Raj Ballabh Dubey who was upmukhia who lost his life in the occurrence from village Basantpur.
The remaining three appellants belong to village Santhi.
Its rent having fallen into arrears the entire holding was sold in execution and purchased by the landlords themselves sometime in September, 1932.
When the Zamindari vested in the State Government the owners mentioned Bal Govind and Jang Bahadur as their tenants being entered in the jamabandi in 1963.
Bhika Singh is related to Nagina Singh and Ram Bachan Bhar is his ploughman.
These six appellants belong to village Atmapur also known as Adarnpur.
On arrival at the spot Bankey Singh found his uncle and Radha Kishan near the eastern side of the disputed field and Rajkishore Singh along with 40 or 50 persons variously armed towards the southwest companyner of the field.
We may number turn to the broad features of the background of the prosecution story.
100 was purchased at an auction sale by Raghunath Singh, the zarpeshgidar who settled the plots in dispute in November, 1925 with Ram Das Singh under a registered patta.
Since Rajkishore Singh, Bindhyachal Singh and Ram Bachan Bhar were armed with bhalas they have rightly been found guilty of the charge under Section 148, Indian Penal Code.
100 and for arrears of rent the zarpeshigidars had obtained a decree and in its execution in September, 1922 had purchased the khata and secured its possession.
Rajkishore thereupon went to call the panchas.
They were chased by the party of Rajkishore Singh.
This was followed by another bhalla blow by Bindheyachal Singh on the left side of his stomach.
Bal Govind suggested that a panchayati should be called to decide this matter.
All the sentences were to run companycurrently.
The party of the accused who were all armed companylected there.
457 and 481 of 1965 from the judgment of the first Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra 1 companyvicting Rajkishore Singh, Bindheyachal Singh and Ram Bachan Bhar a under Sections 302/24.
D. Dua, J. This appeal by special leave by nine appellants is directed against the companymon judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing two criminal appeals Nos.
