PRADIP CHAUDHRY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by twenty persons, who have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge of Monghyr under various sections. I shall give the details of the convictions and sentences when I come to deal with the individual cases. Here it will suffice to say that all the appellants have been convicted under either Section 148 or Section 147, Indian Penal Code, and also under Section 325 read with Section 149. In addition the appellants Mahathi Chaudhury, Bhado Chaudhury, Kari Rai, Harni Rai and Jangi Rai have been substantively convicted under Section 324. Thirty-nine persons in all were, on trial, but the learned Judge acquitted nineteen of them.

(2.) The case was the result of a riot, which took place at about 8 to 8-30 on the morning of 14 June 1944 on plot 1829 of village Nayatola, two miles from Kharia police station. In the course of that riot four persons on the side of Sukhdeo Chaudhry (P.W. 9), the first informant, received injuries. One of them Debu subsequently died from a fractufed skull said to have been caused by a blow inflicted by one Rambhaju, who was not on trial with the rest as he was an absconder. The other three men Harakh Chaudhry (P.W. 8), Sukhdeo Chaudhury (P.W. 9), and Ambika Chaudhury (P.W. 22) received a number of simple injuries.

(3.) Plot 1829 is situated on the south bank of the Gandak. During the course of years the river Gandak has retreated northwards so that lands have gradually accreted to plot 1829 and the surrounding plots so as to convert them into long stripe running up to the present river bank on the north and consisting largely of alluvial lands called locally barari as opposed to the old survey portion of the plots called karari. At the time of the survey the area of plot 1829 was only 10 kathas, but it is now much more. Sukhdeo Chaudhury is said to have purchased practically the whole of the plot in 1943, and what he purchased was 1 bigha 18 kathas from one Nageshwar and 1 katha from a man called Umakant. According to the prosecution, there had been bad feeling between Sukhdeo Chaudhury and his cousin and next-door neighbour the appellant Pardip for some years. It is unnecessary to go into the reasons put forward for this enmity, because it was not denied by the defence that the two were at enmity. Amongst those reasons, however, was said to be a dispute with regard to the eastern boundary of the barari portion of plot 1829. The plot immediately to the east, 1833, belongs to Pardip. It is the case of both sides that the boundary between the two in the barari portion was necessarily somewhat vague as the whole area went under water each rains and fresh silt was deposited. The dispute was said to have been settled by punches some time before the occurrence, one of the punches being Acchutanand, Pardip's father, and another being Mahabir Chaudhury (P.W. 4). The punches made some demarcation of the boundary, but it did not apparently finally settle the dispute. According to the prosecution, Pardip also had wanted to purchase plot 1829 but had been outbid by Sukhdeo, and consequently was anxious to take possession of the whole plot. That has not been established, and the question is not of importance because there was undoubtedly a dispute with regard to the boundary, and that in itself was enough to lead to the occurrence. At the time of the riot sweet potatoes (alua) stood in both plots.