Ram Surat v. Emperor

1. This revision is pressed on the ground that there is no evidence on record to support the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. The case is one in which ten persons including the applicants were convicted by a Deputy Magistrate of rioting and grievous hurt. The prosecution case was that Deonarain applicant had been throwing brickbats at the house of Dudh Nath, a servant of Raja Ram complainant with a view to avert a curse, which otherwise might fall on Dudh Nath in con-sequence of his having seen the moon that night (Bhadon) Shudi 4th. But Dudh Nath did not take the matter in this light and took Deonarain to his master Raja Ram. This was on the night of the 3rd August. Four of the accused then came up and rescued Deonarain. Raja Ram said that Dudh Nath should make a complaint in the morning. Next morning it is said that Raja Ram and Nourang started for Ghazipur in connection with an ejectment case and were joined on the way by Dudh Nath. Near a nala they were joined by Iqbal Khan. After they had crossed the nala near a Baba's hut the ten accused suddenly sprang upon them and beat Raja Ram severely inflicting grievous hurt upon him. Raja Ram's companions ran away to a distance of fifty or hundred paces, where they stood and watched the fight.

2. The learned Sessions Judge had disbelieved at least nine-tenth of the prosecution evidence. He considers the story of Deonarain being rescued on the night of the 23rd August to be a pure fabrication. He thinks that the only persons who were going to the city on the morning of the 24th March were Raja Ram and Dudh Nath, and that they were going not in connection with any ejectment case but in order that Duah Nath might file complaint. He thinks Deonarain had been to Kashi Pande, the father of Ram Surat, who was an old and bitter enemy of Raja Ram, and that they formed the idea of putting in a counter charge of wrongful confinement against Raja Ram and were on their way to Ghazipur for this purpose.

3. He thinks that the two parties Raja Ram and Dudh Nath on one side and Ram Surat and Deonarain on the other side met near the Baba's hut and that a fight occurred in which Raja Ram received injuries, though he thinks that every attempt has been made to exaggerate the extent of these injuries.

4. I am far from saying that the view of the occurrence given by the learned Sessions Judge may not be the truth or some thing near it, but unfortunately there is little, if anything on the record to support it. There is no evidence either for the prosecution or defence that Ram Surat and Deonarain were on their way to the city for the purpose stated by the Judge. None of the prosecution witnesses distinguish between the two applicants and the other persons whom they named. They do indeed say that Ram Surat struck the first blow which broke Raja Ram's arm but the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved them on this point. The suggestion that they were going in to make a charge of wrongful confinement against Raja Ram, however probable it may be, is also a purely conjecture The prosecution case is that the ten accused were lying is ambush near Baba's hut and that when Raja Ram and his companions arrived upon the spot the accused sprang out of their hiding place and surrounded Raja Ram with lathis. This story the learned Sessions Judge has entirely rejected. 1 must, therefore, hold that there is no sufficient evidence on the record to support the findings on which the learned Judge has based the conviction. I accordinly allow this application and setting aside the convictions of the accused direct, that they be set at liberty.

5. Appeal allowed.