JUDGMENT

Ryves, J. - In this case seven men were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Bulandshahr u/s 147 and Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. A large number were accused but as those persons were admittedly to the fight they alone were convicted and the remainder were (given the benefit of the doubt, they have appealed.

2. The learned Sessions Judge has tried the case very carefully, and has written a very full judgment. He has found the facts very clearly up to a certain point. They are as follows: The complainants were a large body of persons composed chiefly of the adherents of AH, a Muhammadan, and the adherents of a Hindu who made common cause. These persons, as shown from, the judgment, had for a long series of years continued in unlawful possession of some plots of land in the village. The former Zemindar, after protracted litigation up to the Board of Revenue, had established the facts that the complainants were trespassers who had no sort of right to possession of the fields. They were then sued for ejectment in the Revenue Courts and decrees were passed against them, and although execution was taken out and they were ejected in due course of law, they nevertheless continued in possession of the fields. The Zemindar sold the village to a leading Vakil of Aligarh and he found the tenants equally recalcitrant. Failing to evict them by the Civil Courts he brought complaints against them for criminal trespass in the Criminal Court and, on conviction they were imprisoned and formal possession was made over to the Zemindars. As soon, however, as they came out of prison they forcibly re-took possession of the land. They were imprisoned again for a similar offence at the beginning of this year; The Zemindar then let out these fields by registered lease to some of the accused, and towards the end of last June the accused, who were lessees of the land and were in peaceful and lawful possession thereof were engaged in ploughing one of the fields. Thereupon the complainants in a large body came up armed with lathis and attacked the tenants, who called for assistance to the cultivators from the neighbouring fields who rushed up. They all had lathis with them and they resisted the very deliberate and prolonged attack made on them by the complainants. Considerable injury was caused to persons on both sides and Alii, the leader of the complainants' party, ultimately succumbed. Having arrived at this finding, the learned Session Judge does not go on to find in so many words who were the aggressors, because, in his opinion, "It is quite immaterial whether the Zemindar's men were ploughing and were attacked by Alli's supporters or whether Alli's supporters were ploughing and were attacked by the Zemindar's men or whether both parties started off to take possession of the fields and met there and fought it out. It is immaterial who got there first. The point is that both sides intended to make a fight of it." The learned Judge says in another portion of his judgment: "It is impossible to believe that there was that entire absence of organization and premeditation that the accused suggest," and he thinks it unlikely that the men who were cultivating neighbouring fields or were cutting grass there went out armed with lathis without any apprehension of being involved in fighting. He goes on to say: "That the Zemindars' party had the right to plough the field I do not for a moment dispute, but I say that they collected their supporters, whether seven or ten or sixteen, is hardly material, but they collected their" supporters armed with lathis and intended on fighting it out; that is to say, in the words of the law, they were an assembly of five or more persons with a common object, and that common object was by show of force to enforce their rights. I fear I cannot appreciate the distinction which certain very learned Judges of the Hon'ble the High Court at Calcutta have attempt