Judgement

JAGANNADHA DAS, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, whereby a number of accused who were acquitted by the Sessions Judge at the trial were convicted and sentenced on appeal by the High Court.

In addition, the High Court while confirming the conviction of another accused (Surjan) under S. 323, Penal Code convicted him also under S. 304, Penal Code and sentenced him therefore to ten years rigorous imprisonment.

2. The case arose out of an incident in the village of Dadoosan at or about 10. A. M. on 15-3-1949, between two rival groups. The village was a Jagir village belonging to a Jagirdar by name Thakore Bakhat Singh. The cultivating class in the village were mostly Bisnois and appear to have been split into two groups in connection with certain demands of the Jagirdar against the tenants, viz., the payment of hasal of Guar.

Twenty families of Bisnois in the village were in favour of the payment to the Jagirdar and seven families against it. The accused are partly members of these seven families and partly residents of adjoining belong villages. The prosecution witnesses belong mostly to the group of the twenty families favourable to the Jagirdar.

3. 15-3-1949 was the day next to the Holi called the Dhulehandi day. On this day it was usual for the Bisnois to observe a ceremony called Pal at which all the Bisnois collect and take charanamrut from a Sad (who performs in Puja). In view of the existence of groups in the Bisnois of the village, the two groups had their Pal ceremony on that day separately.

The trouble arose with reference to the participation in this Pal ceremony of a person called Dhonkala examined at P. W. 4. He participated in the Pal ceremony celebrated by the twenty group. He appears to be somewhat closely related to some members of the seven group, who probably wanted to get him back to their group.

It is the evidence of one of the prosecution witnesses, P. W. 18, that "Peka (one of the accused belonging to the seven group) the brother of Dhonkala (P. W. 4) directed Dhonkala to join him and leave the twenty". P. W. 4 himself says that he took Pal with the men of the twenty group and that when after taking Pal he started from home. Lachha (one of the accused belonging to the seven group) told to take pal with him and his partly and that he did not to go them.

Whether it was Peka or Lachha, it is clear that one of the members of the seven group wanted P. W. 4 to participate with them and that on his refusal some wordy abuse followed. According to the prosecution case this resulted in some of the accused pursuing P. W. 4 with a view to beat him. P. W. 4 ran into his dhani (hut).

Two of the accused Ramchand and Peka thereupon set fire to the dhani with a match stick. The flames which resulted from the fire attracted the attention of the others in the village and the prosecution eye-witnesses came running up to the scene. Some out of them attempted to extinguish the fire but the accused prevented them from doing so.

One Abhey Singh, a distant relation of the Jagirdar, was one of the prominent persons whose intervened. His interference was resented and three out of the these accused were said to have hit him on the head with lathis which they had in their hands. It may be mentioned that it is part of the prosecution case that all the accused except one Ramchand came to the Pal with lathis in their hands and that accused Ramchand had an axe in his hands.

The assault on Abhey Singh by three of the accused resulted in a marpeet in which a number of person on the prosecution side, a viz., Rama, P. W. 13, Sawai, P. W. 14, Ridmal, P. W. 15, Chaina, P. W. 16 and Pusja, P. W. 18, also received injuries. The accused thereupon dispersed and went away to their places. Devi Singh, P. W. 8, the son of the Jagirdar, who is alleged to have run up to the scene of occurrence on noticing the smoke rising form the dhani of Dhonkala and who figured as an eye-witness of the incident