M. H. Beg, J. - (1.)There are twenty-one appellants before me, who have been awarded various sentences under Sections 147, 148, 324/149, 323, 323/149, 427 and 448 I.P.C. Separate convictions and sentences of the individual accused persons will be dealt with by me after having considered what offence, if any, has been proved against accused persons individually.
(2.)The prosecution case was that a construction called a ghari, 45 feet x 12 feet, lying in front of the house of Badri (P.W. 1) since a period of about 22 to 25 years had been rebuilt by Badri with brick walls and covered with thatch and Bamboos supported on beams four or five years before Dec. 19, 1962 when the appellants, together with a very large number of other villagers, estimated between 70 to 80, demolished it after having invaded the house of Badri, armed with lathis, pharsas, and axes, at 3 p.m. on. that day, in village Jogaraj, police station Maholi, in the district of Basti, where the occurrence took place. A first information report of this occurrence was registered as late as Jan. 7, 1963, although the application (Ex. Ka 1), which was registered as the F.I.R. at police station Maholi at 8-15 a.m. on Jan. 7, 1963, was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Basti, on Dec. 21, 1962. The application made by Badri against the twenty-one accused persons contained the allegation that the police of Thana Maholi was supporting the accused persons and that Ram Surat (P.W. 8) had gone to the police station on Dec. 19, 1962 to lodge a report, but the report was not taken down. It also contained the allegation that Smt. Rajdei and Smt. Mewati, two nieces of the complainant, had been injured and deprived of their ornaments by the rioters who demolished and took away the materials of the ghari. It was alleged in this application that one Nanda of Kalupur and Haripal of Parsadipur and a number of other persons had seen the occurrence. Badri (P.W. 1), who made this application was himself absent from his house then as he had been arrested together with two other persons, Ram Harakh and Ram Laut of the party hostile to Badri. These three persons had been arrested because of a F.I.R. lodged on Oct. 21, 1962 at 5-30 p.m. by Badri against Ram Harakh, Munder, Ram Singh, Gaya Din, and Ghurpatri for having tried to threaten Badri and for having dug up a part of the foundation of the ghari which adjoined the field of Ram Harakh. The Investigating Officer had gone there and arrested even Badri and started proceedings under Sec. 107 Crimial P.C. against two alleged parties. It was alleged that Jhakri, the brother of Badri, had gone to Basti in order to get Badri released on bail so that the two married nieces of Badri, and Kauleshwar, the old father of Badri, Badris nephew Ram Surat, and Badris wife and sister-in-law, were the only persons left at the house. It was alleged by the witnesses at the trial that when a large number of persons came to the ghari and adjoining Badris house, the mother and aunt of Ram Surat went inside the house and closed the door, but Smt. Rajdei (P.W. 2) and Smt. Mewati (P.W. 3) were left outside. It was alleged by Ram Surat (P.W. 8) at the trial that he, after being threatened by the rioters, ran into an Arhar field from where he saw everything. Kauleshwar, the father of Badri was said to be about 100 years old and was unable to do anything. Thus, the two women, Rajdei and Mewati who were the only persons left outside who could and did object, were attacked and deprived of their ornaments when they protested against the demolition of the ghari and the removal of the materials.
(3.)The trial court has considered the allegation that the ornaments of the women were removed to be doubtful in view of certain improbabilities and contradictions noticed by it. It came to the conclusion that there might be some exaggeration in making the allegation that the ornaments were also taken When the primary object of the rioters was to demolish the ghari and to take away its materials. The trial court noticed a statement attributed to Smt. Mewati (P.W. 3), that she did not see any accused inflicting blows on her or relieving her of ornaments. The trial court found this statement to be very extraordinary and thought that the Investigating Officer had not properly I taken down the statement. The Investigating Officer Sita Ram Sharma (P.W. 9) was called in this Court to explain, in particular, this alleged statement sought to be proved through' his evidence. At the trial, he had stated that Smt. Mewati had given a statement under Sec. 161 Crimial P.C. that she had not seen "any one" taking or snatching ornaments. When the Investigating Officer was examined in this Court he corrected himself and said that Smt. Mewati had only stated that she did not see any "other" persons taking away I ornaments or attacking. The names of persons who had actually attacked or snatched ornaments were mentioned by her in an earlier part of the very sentence a part of which was put to the Investigating Officer and wrongly admitted by him to be correct representation of what Mewati had told him. This part of a statement seems to have been put in that fashion by the defence counsel in order to create a misleading impression. Neither the trial Court nor the prosecuting counsel detected the error or trick. The Investigating Officer too must have failed to apply his mind to what was probably really put to him to mislead him. The result was that the Investigating Officer erroneously admitted that Smt. Mewati had stated that she had not seen "any one" striking or snatching ornaments when she had actually stated that she had not seen "any one else" doing so.