BANWARI RAM BANS NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1997-12-22
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on December 10,1997

BANWARI RAM,BANS NARAIN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Pattanaik, J. - (1.) These two appeals arise out of the same Sessions Trial being Sessions Trial No. 332 of 1973 in the Court of Vth Additional and District Judge, Varanasi. The appellants are the members of Pradeshik Armed Constabulary belonging to the 5th batallion and their Headquarter was at Ramnagar. An unfortunate and unsavoury incident occurred on account of the decision of the State Government that the Army should take over charge of the armoury and magzines of the Provincial Pradeshik Armed Constabulary throughout Uttar Pradesh. It is on account of the aforeasaid direction the forces belonging to the Pradeshik Armed Constabulary revolted and resisted the Army personnel from taking charge of the armoury and in furtherance of which 12 persons belonging to the Army were killed and 32 were injured. On account of the firing from the Army 4 persons belonging to the Pradesik Armed Constabulary were killed and some were injured. Ultimately, however, the direction of the State was implemented and the Army took charge of the armoury and other weapons. The incident occurred during the night of 21-5-1973 and continued for a fairly long period till 4.30 p.m. of 22-5-1973. On the basis of First Information Report given on 22nd May, 1973, at 7.30 p.m. a criminal case was instituted and a chargesheet was submitted against 44 accused persons including the appellants in these two appeals under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149, 324/149, 326/149, 395/397, 120B and 427/149, IPC and Rule 43(5) of the Defence of India Rules as well as under Sections 6(b) and 7(c).U.P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Act. Accused Banwari Ram, Ram Kirat Yadav, Hira Shanker Singh, Sheo Bahadur Yadav, Lal Babu Singh, Ramayan Singh, Indradeo Ram, Ramashanker Singh, Ram Nath Sharma, Lok Nath Singh and Tara Prasad Tewari were also charge sheeted under Section 409, IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Varanasi and ultimately the accused persons were tried by the Vth Additional and District Judge, Varanasi.
(2.) The prosecution case in nutshell is that the members of the Armed Constabulary formed an Association which was not recognised by the State of U.P. The forces belonging to the Armed Constabulary who had been posted in the Lucknow University Campus became indisciplined and some untoward incidents happened there which compelled the State Government to take a decision to disarm the Armed Constabulary and give charge of the armoury and magzines hitherto under the charge of the Armed Constabulary to the Army in the entire State. When this decision was communicated by the I.G. of Police to the DIG of Police Varanasi range the said DIG had a telephonic talk with the Commissioner Shri A.K. Mustaf as the situation was going out of control and in accordance with the decision taken by the State Government to hand over the arms and ammunitions belonging to the Armed Constabulary to Army the local Administration at Varanasi requested the Army Commandant Lt. Col. S.K. Verma to provide Military assistance to take over the charge of the Armed Constabulary Quarter Guard and the Magzine at Ramnagar. The Army personnel discussed the matter with the civillian authorities chalked out a scheme of action and finally a contingent of army was sent to the Armed Constabulary Headquarter at Ramnagar under the leadership of Major C.S. Chima accompanied by a Magistrate First Class. They started the operation at 2.15 a.m. on 22nd May, 1973, and reached at the Try Junction of the road at Rambagh. The Magistrate then proceeded towards the Quarter Guard Building accompanied by the Company Commanders of the Armed Constabulary leaving their vehicles away on the road at a distance of 50 to 60 yards from Quarter Guard Building. Reaching near the Quarter Guard they found that apart from the Guards on duty there were 40 to 50 persons belonging to the Armed Constabulary and when the Commanders directed those people to hand over charge of the armoury to the Military, the Guards on duty as well as those who were present there became agitated and openly refused to hand over the charge to the Military. Those Guards also openly declared that if anybody proceeds to take over the charge of Quarter Guard then they should be taught a lesson. The Magistrate present there also tried to persuade the members of the Armed Constabulary not to resist Army from taking over the charge inasmuch as it was the decision of the State Government but those persons did not pay any attention to the advise of the Magistrate. These Armed Constabulary personnel seeing that Army is marching towards the Quarter Guard sounded the bugle and then breaking open the locks of the armoury armed themselves to fight out. The Magistrate on duty declared the Assembly of the Armed Constabulary at the Quarter Guard Building as unlawful and ordered their dispersal but instead of dispersing from the place they opened fire from the Quarter Guard Building towards the Military force. The officers of the Military forces marching towards Quarter Guard Building thereupon returned back and Major Cheema, who was the commanding officer of the Army sought for permission of the Magistrate to use force in self-defence. On being permitted by the Magistrate the Army personnel took their position and opened fire and a regular battle started between the personnel of the Armed Constabulary and the Army. The Magistrate then had a telephonic discussion with the District Magistrate and sought for reinforcement of the Army personnel. Lt. Col. S.K. Verma reached the place of incident with the reinforcement of Military personnel accompanied by Major N.N. Jolly. Under the orders of Col. Verma a group lead by Major Jolly started approaching the Quarter Guard Building from one direction and another group lead by Col. Verma proceeded from another direction. Both the groups faced stiff resistance from the personnel belonging to the Armed Constabulary and ultimately Armed Constabulary personnel surrendered and the Military took over the charge of the armoury in the Quarter Guard Building. As already stated, on the basis of First Information Report lodged on 22-5-1973 at 7.30 p.m. a Criminal case was registered and after necessary investigation charge sheet was filed against 44 persons including the appellants in these two appeals. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted 9 accused persons of all the charges levelled against them and convicted accused Banwari Ram. Ram Kirat Singh Yadav, Ganesh Prasad, Sheo Bahadur Ram, Hira Shankar Singh, Lok Nath Singh, Rama Shanker Singh, Ramayan Singh, Lal Babu Singh, Ram Nath Sharma, Indradeo Ram and Tara Prasad Tewari of the offence under Sections 302/149, 127, 148, 307/149, 427/149, IPC and Rule 43(5) of the Defence of India Rules as well as under Sections 6(b) and 7(c) of the UP Pradeshic Armed Constabulary Act. They were, however, acquitted of the charges under Sections 324/149, 326/149, 325/149 and 120B, IPC. One Chhabinat Singh was convicted only of the offence under Section 7(c) of the UP Pradeshic Armed Constabulary Act and was acquitted of the remaining charges. Accused Bansh Narain Singh, Ghulam Sarvar, Purshottam Singh, Virendra Singh Bhadauria, Indra Singh Rai and Kesh Nath Singh were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 324/149, 326/149, 395/397, IPC and 120B, IPC but were convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 427/149, IPC and 43(5) of the Defence of India Rules and Sections 6(b) and 7(c) of the UP Provincial Armed Constabulary Act. Accused Shambhu Singh, Jagdish Rai, Hira Lal Tripathi, Nand Kumar Yadav, Banshidhar Tripathi, Shamim Ahmad, Markandey Singh, Mushtaq Ahmad, Ram Kewal Singh, Satya Narain Prasad Singh, Anil Kumar Dass, Jagdish Singh, Ram Cheez Yadav, Parsu Ram Yadav, Ambika Upadhyay and Jagdish Prasad Mishra were convicted under Sections 147, 427/149, IPC 43(5) of the Defence of India Rules and 7(c) of the UP Provincial Armed Constabulary Act. They were, however, acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 324/149, 326/149, 395/397 and 120B, IPC and Section 6(b) of the UP Provincial Armed Constabulary Act.
(3.) 19 of the convicted accused persons filed a Criminal Appeal No. 2478 of 1976. Accused Banwari Ram and 11 others filed a Criminal Appeal No. 2587 of 1976 challenging their conviction and sentence passed against them. Accused Chhabinath filed a Criminal Appeal No. 2823 of 1976 assailing his conviction under Section 7(c) of the Provincial Armed Constabulary Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.