BEGU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore in a case which came before it on appeal from the Sessions Judge of Montgomery. By their judgment the High Court affirmed the sentence of death which had been pronounced by the Sessions Judge on two of the appellants and the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment pronounced on the three other appellants.

(2.) Shortly stated the case made out by the prosecution was this: On the night of June 15, 1923, one Bakhsha, the murdered man, was riding home accompanied by a man called Turez, who was the chief witness for the prosecution The latter parted from him about 9 P. M. to go to a well in one of his fields, and Bakhsha continued On his way. Very shortly after they had parted Turez heard a cry from the direction in which Bakhsha had gone; he ran forward and saw Bakhsha being assaulted by the five accused, and another man, who has since absconded. It was said in the evidence that friction had existed between the families of Bakhsha and the accused, Turez came sufficiently close to them to see what was happening. Two of the accused, seeing him, threatened him and went towards him : but he ran away to the neighbouring village of Tibbi Hamid Sahu, where he raised an alarm and stated what he had seen. A party from the village at once went to the place where the assault had taken place, but they found no trace of Bakhsha, only signs of a struggle and blood on the ground. There was a certain amount of conflict of evidence. Turez said all the accused fell upon Bakhsha and inflicted on him many wounds with weapons which included. a hatchet and other sharp weapons. It was afterwards found that when they had killed him they wrapped up his corpse in a cloth and placed it on a horse and went away with it That is important in view of what took place at the trial. The horse was identified and trackers were able to trace the footprints of the accused, and the Court was satisfied that each of the appellants was identified,

(3.) The appellants were committed for trial at the Sessions Court on a charge of a murder, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was tried by the learned Judge at the Sessions Court with the aid of three assessors, and at the end of the case the assessors gave their opinions, which were recorded; that they were unanimously of opinion that Bakht and Walia, the accused, had attacked Bakhsha with intent to kill him; that they murdered him; that two of the others who were present took part in the assault, as stated by Turez the eye-witness; that there might be some doubt as to whether Hamid, one of the accused, was also present and took part in the assault or not; and, finally, that the prosecution case and evidence appeared generally reliable throughout, That is what the learned Judge regarded as being the opinion of the assessors The learned Judge, having the evidence and the views of the assessors before him and having considered them, on December 22, delivered his judgment. With regard to Bakhu and Walia he decided that they intended to kill Bakhsha and were guilty of murder and he sentenced them to death. With regard to the other three, he was of opinion that the evidence did not sufficiently or definitely prove that they were present at and had taken part in the murder; but, on the other hand, he convicted each of them of having removed the body, and he sentenced them each to seven years rigorous imprisonment.