- (1.) THIS is an appeal by Pyare, Basantoo, Nanhoo, Tika, Jabba and Kundan who have been convicted and sentenced under various sections of the Penal Code. Under Section 304, Penal code, all of them except Nanhoo have been sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of RS. 30 each, or in default one month's farther rigorous imprisonment. Under that section nanhoo has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30 or in default one month's further rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 325 and 323, Penal Code, all the appellants were sentenced to three months' and and six months' rigorous imprisonment each respectively. Under Section 147, Penal Code, all the appellants except Kundan were sentenced to three month's rigorous imprisonment. Kundan was convicted under Section 148, Penal Code, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences passed on each of the accused were to run concurrently. Two other persons, Mulla and Mangoo were also charged along with the aforesaid appellants but they were acquitted.
(2.) THE accused were charged with being members of an unlawful assembly formed with the common object of forcibly dispossessing Khuman and Udan from their sugarcane field on 19-11-1949, at about six gharis after sunrise in the 'har' of village Umaria, police station shahabad, district Hardoi. They were further charged with having committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causing the death of Khuman as well as with having caused injuries on Gulzari Lal, Gajraj and Chhotey Lal.
(3.) THE incident in question was the result of a dispute between a party of Kisans who may be called the Kisans or the appellants' party on the one hand and a party of Brahmans and Ahirs who may be described as the complainant's party. It may be mentioned that the appellants Pyare, basantoo and Nanhoo are own brothers and are Kisans by caste. Tika, Jabba and Kundan, the other three appellants are their cousins and also Kisans by caste. The dispute between these two parties arose over the ownership and possession of a plot of land with an area of about 18 bighas 1 biswa situate in Umaria Kalan and has been going on for sometime. This plot has been the bone of contention between them in the revenue Courts. The admitted facts relating to the dispute between the parties may be mentioned at the outset. It would appear that on 10. 11. 1948, pyare, appellant, and others filed an application that the entries existing in the Patwari's papers in favour of the complainant's party were erroneous and were made as a result of the collusion of the Patwari with the complainant's party. On 23-1-1949, the tahsildar made a report against the party of the Kisans appellants. On 5-2-1949, the case relating to entries was decided against the kisans appellants : vide EX. 32. Subsequent to the adverse decision of this case against them, two suits were filed and the evidence relating to these two suits is, in my opinion, of crucial importance in the decision of the present case. One of these suits was filed by Pyare Kisan and others including Jabba who had lost in the case relating to entries. This suit was filed against Pyare Brahman, Eaghoo and Ram eoop who belonged to the complainant's party. This suit was filed on 9-4-1949. It was a suit under Sections 180 and 59, U. P. Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs claimed ejectment of the defendants and compensation for the unlawful possession of the said land by the defendants. The plaint of this suit is EX. 13. The other suit was filed by Tika appellant, against the same defendants on the same date under Sections 180 and 59, U. P. Tenancy Act. On 15-10-1949, both the suits were decreed--vide EXS. 28 and 29. On 18-11-1949 actual dakhal dehani of the said plots in favour of the decree-holders, Pyare and others as well as Tika was made in the said suits--vide Exs. 26 and 27. The effect of the plaintiffs obtaining a decree in their suits under section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act, was that the crops existing or standing on the said land at the time of delivery of possession vested in the decree-holders irrespective of the fact as to whether they were sown by the decree-holders or the judgment-debtors--vide Section 160 (3), U. P. Tenancy Act.;