Mullick, J.:— (After stating the facts set out above, proceeded as follows:)
The appellant lives in the Gaya District and his master Bajadhar Prasad who also resides in that district, appears to have assisted the Rani of Deo who is the niece of one Thakurai Jagat Prasad Singh of mauza Burhibir in the Palamau district in a litigation with her husband, the Raja of Deo. That litigation was eventually settled by the Raja's making over a property worth Rs. 5,000 per annum to the Rani and paying a sum of Rs. 10,000 in cash to Gajadhar Prasad. Subsequently Gajadhar Prasad lent money to Thakurai Jagat Prasad in a litigation with his brother Ramsunder and took from Jagat Prasad a zarpeshgi of a two-anna eight-pies share in certain mauzas of which Burhibir was one. In consequence of Gajadhar Prasad's realizing the rent of a five anna four-pies share of the villages instead of a two-anna eight pies share disputes arose between him and Jagat Prasad in or about September 1923, and Ram-sunder having by this time settled his dispute with Jagat Prasad and joined Jagat Prasad in resisting Gajadhar, a complaint was lodged by one of the servants of Gajadhar against Ramsunder and his servants alleging that they were threatening a breach of the peace and requesting that action should be taken to bind them down. Munsaf Ram was one of the persons thus complained against. In consequence of that complaint the Sub-Inspector of Police at Daltonganj which is eight miles from Burhibir stationed constable Ramgulam Tewari at Burhibir to see that no breach of the peace took place between Gajadhar's men and Ramsunder's men. The constable who had taken up his residence in the village about ten days earlier states that on the day of the fire he cooked his food at an open chulha (fire place) near the but in question, and after pouring some water on the fire he went to rest in the thakurbari (temple) of Jagat Prasad. About 3 p.m a dust storm arose and immediately afterwards he saw the but in flames; among others Munsaf Ram came to the place but the appellant Parmeshwar Lal was not in the village at all that day.
Prosecution witness Ram Lal Singh, a peon in the service of the Rani of Deo, who was at the time residing with her uncle Jagat Prasad, had been sleeping in the but after his midday meal. He says that about 4 p.m he got up and went to wash his face. Then came the dust storm and immediately afterwards he found that the but was on fire. He suggests that the fire came from the embers in the open fire place where he had cooked his food and near which there was a quantity of jute sticks. He says that Munsaf Ram arrived after the but was completely burnt out about five minutes after the fire began, and that he assisted in extinguishing the fire in a neighbouring house, namely that of Nanki Dusadin, to which the fire had spread.
Ram Lal is corroborated by Jawadhan whose house is immediately east of the hut.
Surajnath Pathak, who is Jagat Prasad's priest and was in the thakurbari about 30 paces to the west, Ramdhari Lohar, Jamaluddin, the grandson of Jawadhan and Mussammat Nanki also corborate Ram Lal.
All these witnesses prove that Munsaf Ram did not set fire to the hut, came after the fire began and that he assisted in putting it out.
The witness Lalji proves that at the time of the fire Munsaf Ram was working with other coolies at it wall which was being built for his master Ram-sunder Singh to the west of the but and that on hearing shouts of fire Munsaf ran to the place, and that he returned about half an hour later. This witness states that the but is some distance from where he was working and that he did not go to it.
In my opinion the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that Munsaf did not set fire to the but and that the appellant's information to the Police was maliciously false.
With regard to the ownership of the hut, the evidence is that it was built by the Rani's men with wood, straw and leaves taken from Jagat Prasad's jungle. At that time the Rani had already given Gajadhar Prasad the managership of her properties in the Gaya district and the prosecution witnesses seem to have looked upon the Rani's servants as Trajadhar's servants. It appears that after Gajadhar obtained the zarpeshgi from Jagat Prasad he appointed one Audh Behari as his dewan at Burhibir for making collections. About eight days before the fire the appellant Parmeshwar succeeded Audh Behari. The but in question was built about two months before the fire. Gajadhar's own servants used at first to live in a tent, but after the but was built Ram Lal Singh and Bulaki Singh, two peons of the Rani, and Jhari Singh, the tahsildar of Gajadhar, used to sleep in it. Ram Lal says that he used at first to sleep in a room in Jagat Prasad's house which is to the west, but owing to shortness of accommodation he came over to the newly built hut. He was paid by the Rani through her manager Gajadhar Prasad, and it is clear from the evidence of the chaukidar Faujdar that the villagers made no distinction between the servants of Gajadhar and the servants of the Rani.
I think therefore that it is established that the but was not the property of Gajadhar and in the circumstances it is difficult to see why Munsaf Ram, the servant of Ramsunder, should set fire to it.
In the first information it is stated that the value of the but was Rs. 25 and that the articles destroyed consisted of rice, dal, salt, clothes and aluminium pots worth Rs. 21. It is not stated to whom these properties belonged, but the evidence is that some of them belonged to Ram Lal Singh and the constable Ram Tewari. Jhari Singh, the tahsildar, was at Daltonganj that day with his master Gajadhar Prasad who had come there from Gaya. Bulaki was also away and it does not appear that any property belonging to Gajadhar's own servants was in the hut. Parmeshwar certainly had nothing there. That this should have been so is natural for Parmeshwar was only appointed eight days before the fire and he had only paid one visit to Burhibir. I accept the statement of Ram Lal when he says that Parmeshwar came to Burhibir on Sunday, the 30th Baisakh and went away on the next day and that the fire took place the following Wednesday. Parmeshwar Lal's statement that he was in the but at the time of the fire is, in my opinion, wholly and intentionally false. I cannot accept his explanation that he could not leave the village immediately after the fire because there was nobody else to look after his master's interests. I do not think it is likely that he would have stayed in the village alone that night if this had been a real case of arson. Next, if Parmeshwar had himself seen Munsaf setting fire to the hut, I do not understand why on the following morning Ram Lal should have been ordered by Anda Behari to go to Daltonganj to inform Gajadhar Prasad. There would have been no necessity for Andh Behari to interfere. I am satisfied that Ram Lal was sent by Audh Behari and the chaukidar Faujdar by the constable and that at Daltonganj they had an interview with Gajadhar and Parmeshwar and that under Gajadhar's orders Parmeshwar went afterwards to the thana to lodge an information against Munsaf Ram.
It has been contended that the first information contains details which it would not have been possible for Parmeshwar to give if he had not himself seen Munsaf in the act. I am not impressed by this argument. The story that Munsaf was running away and that Jagat Prasad was standing near the thakurbari might easily have been invented by one who was not at the place of occurrence at all.
It is next contended that at most the information is a mistake of fact and does not amount to a false information within the meaning of section 211. Penal Code. If the appellant had said to the police that he suspected Munsaf Ram and if he had not deliberately charged Munsaf Ram with having set fire to the hut, there might have been some substance in this plea, but here it is clear that the appellant's intention was not merely that the police should follow up a clue but that the police should put Munsaf Ram on his trial. It was clearly the appellant's intention to set the criminal law in motion against Munsaf Ram and to injure Ramsunder and Jagat Prasad.
Next it is contended that the case does not come within the latter part of section 211. It is urged that a false information given to the police is not a proceeding instituted on a false charge within the meaning of the second part of the section. In my opinion a charge laid before the police is a criminal proceeding, and notwithstanding the authority of Queen Empress v. Bisheshar, I think that the decision of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Karim Buksh v. Queen Empress, contains a correct statement of the law.
Finally there remains the question of sentence. Having regard to the fact that the but was a very flimsy and temporary structure and that it was worth only Rs. 25 and that the total value of property destroyed was less than Rs. 50, a sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment seems to be unduly severe. There might have been a suspicion in the mind of Parmeshwar that Ram Sunder's men had a hand in causing the fire and the false charge does not bear any indication of any deep laid plot. In the circumstances I think that a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment will meet the ends of justice. The sentence is accordingly reduced.
Bucknill, J.:— I agree.
Sentence reduced.