Ghasi Ram vs Sukra Uraon and Others

Jwala Prasad, J.—The petitioner in this case has been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Simdega in the District of Ranchi u/s 447 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of four complaints lodged before the Magistrate by four different persons:

(1) Sukra Uraon lodged a complaint in respect of extortion, wrongful confinement, and possibly of criminal trespass said to have been committed on the 15th July 1916;

(2) Lende Uraon lodged a complaint in respect of criminal intimidation and trespass said to have been committed on the 16th of July 1916;

(3) Saijniwa Uraon lodged a complaint in respect of a criminal trespass of the 22nd of July 1916; and

(4) Chuku Uraon lodged a complaint in respect of a criminal trespass said to have been committed on the 22nd of July 1916.

The place of occurrence in each of these cases is different.

On appeal the learned Judicial Commissioner of Ranchi, in his judgment dated the 18th of January 1917, observes as follows:-- �It seems that the accused was on his trial for four acts of criminal trespass committed on three separate dates. I am not prepared to hold that these acts under the special circumstances which existed were not so connected together as to form the same transaction. The joint trial is justified u/s 235(1). The details which appeared in the explanation should have been mentioned in the judgment."

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his judgment does not at all hold that the above offences on separate dates were committed in the course of the same transaction. He has, however, in the explanation that he submitted to the Judicial Commissioner, tried to show that the aforesaid offences were committed in the same transaction. He says in his explanation: �The place of occurrence being village Bhaimunda, Tola Jumka Chhapar, Sukra Oraon''s case included a complaint of extortion said to have taken place in Khinda, the trespass occurring in Bhaimunda. All these com-plaints were brought the same day and the complainants are witnesses '' for themselves and for each other. It appears that on the same day and place these persons were made to, sign an agreement regarding the terms of their tenancies. These terms are all of such a nature that it is impossible to believe that the accused obtained the so-called signatures honestly and it was to enforce these terms that he committed trespass in interfering with the cultivation of each of the complainants."

The above explanation of the Magistrate is, I think, not sufficient to show that the offences were so connected as to form the same transaction. The agreement, to enforce which the offences are said to have been committed, was executed on a date long prior to the dates of the occurrences complained of. The fact that the complaints were lodged on the same day or that the motive for the commission of the offences was the same in all these occurrences does not at all go to show that the offences were committed in the course of the same transaction. The act complained of in each case is a complete transaction in itself, namely to compel the complainant to pay enhanced rent or to quit the land. The object in each case is distinct from and independent of the other cases. There is no distinct finding of the Courts below that the offences were in the course of the same transaction.

This case is similar to the case of Nanda Kumar Sirkar v. Emperor 11 C.W.N. 1128 : 6 Cri. L.J. 32 where three persons laid three separate complaints against the accused, alleging that they committed rioting and individually caused hurt to each of the complainants, and it was held that though the origin and the preparations for the commission of the offences might be the same, the offences were distinct from each other and the joint trial of the accused for the offences was illegal.

The trial of the accused in respect of the four distinct offences committed in this case at different times and at different places must be held to be illegal and the conviction must be set aside,

The question is whether the case should be remanded for re-trial separately in respect of each of the complaints lodged against the accused. I do not think any useful purpose will be served by having a re-trial.

The main charge in the complaint of Sukra Uraon is that of extortion and of wrongful confinement of the complainant by the accused. This has been disbelieved by the first Court,

There is no mention in the complaint petitions of Sukra and Lende of their ploughs having been turned out of the fields.

In the other cases the ploughs of the complainants are said to have been turned out of their respective fields.

I have looked into the evidence on the record and I find that the evidence consists mainly of the four complainants themselves. It is doubtful if the evidence proves conclusively that the accused was present at the time when the ploughs were turned out of their fields.

The case against the accused is of a vague arid general character, of having given orders to his servants in execution of which the ploughs of the complainants were turned out of their respective fields

The conviction is, therefore, set aside and the application is allowed. The fine, if realized, must be refunded.