King Emperor vs Artu Rautra

Bucknill, J.—This was an appeal made by the Orown against the acquittal on July 27th last by the Sessions Judge of Cuttack of five men who had appealed from their conviction by the District Magistrate of Puri on the 12th March last in respect of certain offences to which detailed reference will presently be made. The main facts are very simple but are peculiar and some difficulties arise in proper consideration of the evidence owing to the fact that in the unfortunate affair out of which these proceedings arose the complainant (a European) and those of the accused (all Indian) persons with whom he spoke obviously did not completely understand each other''s conversation. The complainant waff a Mr. Percy Brown, who is the Principal of the Government School of Arts at Calcutta. Just before Christmas 1922 he came on a visit to a place called Balighai (which is about nine miles from Puri) partly with the view of shooting black buck and partly with the object of seeing the Konarak temple which is in the neighborhood. Mr. Brown had, during the previous five years, on several occasions shot near Balighai and had killed some black buck in the vicinity: he had apparently never asked to thought it necessary to ask anyone''s permission so to do and certainly had never been requested not to shoot there. There is nothing in the least unusual in such conduct for although it is common ground that the proprietors of an estate can (and many do) prohibit shooting on their property except by their invitation or with their permission, it is equally a matter of agreement that in this country it has always been the practice for many sportsmen to roam at large over the country side in search of game without interference on the part of the proprietors of the land on which they pursue their quarry and without obtaining the sanction of the lands owners; it is assumed that the proprietors give a tacit acquiescence though no one would suggest for one moment that a proprietor could not prohibit shooting on his property or, request the withdrawal from it of anyone found thereon engaged in such sport. It is also desirable to clear up a point in this connection as to which there seems to be some uncertainty in the minds of some members of the public: it is this:--If a person kills a wild animal or wild bird on the property of another person such lead creature does not belong to the killer but to the, proprietor of the property: and such proprietor either himself or by his (sic) authorized agent can lawfully demand and if refused seize such dead creature from the possession of the killer: and such persons as help him to exercise his right are doing no wrong: but, as against any person other than the proprietor of the estate or his duly authorized agent or those lawfully helping the proprietor or his agent the killer has a right to retain possession of the dead creature which he has thus kilted. It is necessary to realize the above postulates (about which there is in law no controversy) in order to approach correctly a proper consideration of what took place in the present o scurrenees.

On December 26th (1922) Mr. Brown went out in the evening to shoot black buck: he took with him three shikaris, Jatu Gochait (P.W. 2). Bancha Gochait (P.W. 3): and Kalu Padhan (P.W. 4) these men speak Oriya; they do not understand English or Hindustani: they live in the neighbourhood in which Oriya is the familiar speech of the inhabitants. Mr. Brown does not understand Oriya but says that he speaks Urdu fairly fluently having bad 23 1/2 years'' service in various parts of India.

It is once more common ground that Mr. Brown''s pursuit of game on the day in question was conducted at all material times on land which is part of a property known as the Paikpara estate it would seem that the raja to whom it belonged had recently died and that the estate was in the hands of executrices: but, at any rate, a lady, who is referred to as the rani, has been throughout this case, mentioned as the individual in control of the estate: she is a pudanashin lady who normally resides in Calcutta. Mr. Brown saw a black luck on open ground about a couple of miles from Balighai, had a long shot at it but only succeeded in wounding it and it made off Mr. Brown following it: it ram about half a mile or so and then lay down at the edge of what has been indifferently described as "some jungle bushes", "an open grove", "forty polang trees" "a bagicha, i.e., orchard or garden", but which was evidently at any rate in part a more or less formal plantation of these polang (oil seed) trees. This plantation is about a quarter of a mile from a village known as Hingora which is roughly two miles from Balighai. Mr. Brown then got in another shot, killing the animal: and he and his shikaris went up to the creature and the latter were tying its legs together in order to crry it away. At this juncture a man named Padma Charan Mahanti, who is one of the tahsildars of the Paikpara estate and who admittedly is the manager in local charge of that portion of the property in which lay Hingora village and the place where the black buck was killed, came up from the village and addressed Mr. Brown in Hindustani.

It may be conveniently here noted that the tahsildar was convicted by the District Magistrate firstly of an offence punishable u/s 147 (riot) of the Penal Code and was sentenced thereunder to nine months'' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300, and in default of payment of such fine to a further two months'' rigorous imprisonment; and, secondly, of an offence against, and punishable under, the joint provisions of Sections 149 and 323 of the Penal Code (being a member of an unlawful assembly and guilty in prosecution of a common object of voluntarily causing hurt) and was sentenced thereunder to nine months rigorous imprisonment, such sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently with that imposed upon him in connection with his conviction u/s 147. Out of the fine, the District Magistrate ordered that a sum of Rs. 100 was to be paid to Mr. Brown by way of compensation for injuries caused to him and his property. The tashildar was acquitted by the Sessions Judge; he has now disappeared and in consequence no notice of the present appeal by the Crown challenging his acquittal could be served upon him: no appeal, therefore, is with regard to his acquittal before this Court. But the evidence as to what took place between him and Mr. Brown is of great importance in its bearing upon the events which took place. It is quite clear that Mr. Brown did not completely understand the tahsildar nor did the tahsildar clearly understand Mr. Brown. One of the shikaris thought Mr. Brown was talking English.

[His Lordship then quoted from the first information and the deposition of Mr. Brown and proceeded:]

It may be again convenient here to observe that this Artu or Arta Routra (who is a man of about 30 is a petty tenant on the Paikpara estate living close to the scene of occurrence and art agent for securing pilgrims and persuading them to entrust themselves to the care of a certain priest at Puri) was convicted by the District Magistrate, firstly, of an offence punishable u/s 147 (riot), and was sentenced thereunder to nine monthes'' rigorous imprisonment; and secondly, of an offence punishable u/s 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) in respect of which he was also sentenced to nine months'' rigorous imprisonment; such imprisonment was to run concurrently with the other sentence of nine months'' rigorous imprisonment imposed upon him: and to a fine of Rs. 50 in default of payment of which he was to undergo one month''s further rigorous imprisonment. He was acquitted by the Sessions Judge on appeal.

The so-called "president" bears the name of Banchanidhi Paikrai he is a chaukidari president he was convicted by the District Magistrate, firstly, of an offence punishable u/s 147, and was sentenced thereunder to six months'' rigorous imprisonment: he was, secondly convicted of an offence against the combined provisions of Sections 149 and 323 hut no separate sentence, was passed in respect of this offence. He was acquitted on appeal.

[After discussing the evidence of the shikaris His Lordship proceeded as follows:]

The above depositions introduce the names of the other accused and it is once more convenient here to refer to what happened in the cases. Chema Bhoi is a servant in the employment of the Paikpara estate and his duties were to look after the polang plantation near which the buck was shot: the polang tree is a tree of agricultural utility producing seeds which are expressed to make oil for lighting purposes. He is under the tashildar''s orders; he was convicted by the District Magistrate of an offence punishable u/s 147 and sentenced to four months'' rigorous imprisonment: he was also convicted, of an offence against or punishable under the joint provisions of Section 149 and 323 but no separate sentence was passed in connection with this latter conviction. Udaya Nath Barjena and Bhoji Deorhi--ordinary villagers were convicted of precisely the same offences as was Chema Bhoi but each received sentences of six months'' rigorous imprisonment instead of as he did of four months: he, Chema Bhoi, receiving a lighter sentence because in the view of th8 District Magistrate, there was some excuse for him as he was a servant of the estate and expected to obey the tashildar''s instructions. All these three men were acquitted on appeal. There was a seventh accused--another villager, named Banamali Indrajit--but he was acquitted by the District Magistrate as his identification as having taken any active part or indeed any part at all in the affair did not appear to him to be very satisfactory. Mr. Brown, of course, did not, prior to the occurrence, know any of the accused personally or by sight and only identified the tahsildar, Artu and the president.

Having thus explained the preliminary steps in what took place, the narrative may now be resumed at the point where the tahsildar, the president, Artu, Mr. Brown and his head shikari (Jatu), with Chemu and a boy carrying the buck, and a small party of villagers, had reached the so-called katcheri and the body of the buck hat been put into a room.

Mr. Brown was much chagrined he thought he had a right to the buck''s carcass: he had hoped that when he had got the village he would be able to find someone of some authority who would support his claim: and, when he saw that there was no such person there and that the buck was definitely appropriated, he intimated as clearly as he was able (it seems very doubtful if any of his auditors understood properly what he said) that he and his shikaris were going to take the buck from the house where it had been deposited: and, was apparently, on the move towards the door of the room where the buck was when Artu hit at his head with a heavy lathi; Mr. Brown warded this attack off with his left hand and endeavourer to push Artu away with his right; Artu again struck Mr. Brown on the head smashing his "solar topee" and knocking it off and numbing Mr. Brown''s right arm which he had raised to ward off the blow: Artu then aimed a third blow, but the shikari, Jatu, rushed in between him and Mr. Brown and received the blow intended for Mr. Brown on his (Jatu''s) left arm. A friendly, though rather rough, villager then pushed Mr, Brown away advising him, by gesture, to take to his heels; which Mr. Brown prudently and hatiess did. The shikari (Jatu) and some of the villagers tried to prevent the infuriated Artu from pursuing him and succeeded in delaying him (and others; to some extent. Mr. Brown thus got a start, and making the best use of his speed (he is a gentleman of about 50), fairly out-distanced his pursuers (who consisted of Artu brandishing his lathi and about 15 or 20 villagers some with sticks) who with loud yells joined in the chase: however, they soon saw that Mr. Brown could cover the ground faster than they could and so gave up the hunt.

In the course of this run Mr. Brown succeeded in taking his rifle from the shikari (Bancha) who was holding it and who had been cautiously watching what was taking place from a safe distance of about 100 yards away. Jatu, who no doubt stuck to his employer very p luckily, appears to have diminished sensibly the ardour of the pursuers by offering to them money so that he should buy off the chase; such demands for money being made, so he says, by Artu andBhaji who were amongst the chasing crow.

It is quite clear that neither the tahsildar nor the president took any part in the cross-country run: but Udaya Nath and Chema ran with the others: it seems, however, moderately certain from the evidence that neither Baji nor Udaya Nath carried anything in their hands but Chema may have carried a bari (a small stick).

Although it has little, if anything, to do with the questions now before this Court it is a matter of interest to observe that Mr. Brown soon met some friends; and went back to the village with them: the village was almost empty but he succeeded in catching the tahsildar and handed him eventually over to the police: but with these later matters we are not now here concernei.

[His Lordship then dealt with the evidence about the as ault at the katcheri and continued:]

Mr. Brown was examined by the officiating Civil Surgeon at Puri on the afternoon of December 30th; he had a bruise 1 1/2 on the inner side of his left hand; another 1 1/2 inches diameter on the middle of his left forearm aid a swelling on the ball of his left thumb: all probably caused by a blunt instrument. Jatu, who was examined by the Assistant Surgeon at the sadr hospital at Puri on the same day, had a large hard swollen contusion 3 1/2 x 2 1/2 inches on the outer side of his left forearm. It may be, perhaps, here, noted that Mr. Brown deposes in his evidence that when he had returned with his four friends who were on horseback to, and was in, the village, one of his friends'' horses "reared and threw its rider and fell on him": whether this accident hurt Mr. Brown or not we do not hear but notwithstanding this accident and the blows he had received on his hand and arm he was sufficient unhurt to be able, when the tahsildar had been captured and had during the confusion caused by the rearing of the horse, escaped to pursue him (the tahsildar) and to use his own word "spring on him and bring him to the ground." So Mr. Brown''s injuries were evidently not very serious.

Now the main charges framed against all the accused were (a) u/s 147 that they were members of an unlawful assembly of which the common object was by means of criminal force or show of criminal force to compel Mr. Brown to do what he was not legally bound to do, namely, to relinquish a wild buck which he had shot and killed and in prosecution of which common object one of the members of the unlawful assembly, namely, Artu Rautra caused hurt to Mr. Brown, and (b) a similar charge under the joint provisions of Section 323/149. Artu was also charged separately with causing hurt to Mr. Brown and Jatu u/s 323 and with mischief by knocking off Mr. Brown''s solar topee and preventing him from recovering it, u/s 426.

Artu''s case necessitates consideration somewhat different from that re-quintet be accorded to those of the other accused: and as the tahsildar was the first person on the scene after the buck was killed and has put forward a claim of right to the buck on behalf of the Paikpara estate his (the tahsildar''s) case must obviously be considered first: as whatever could lawfully be done by any ot the other accused could only rest upon the legal correctness of the tahsildar''s attitude in the matter.

Although before the District Magistrate the tahsildar said he would file a written statement he apparently did not do so but at the trial he took up the position and called evidence to substantiate it that be had laid claim to the buck acting on behalf and under the instructions of the proprietors of the estate of which he was (of part) the tahsildar. If he really did claim the carcass on behalf of the raj and was within the scope of his authority in doing so he was clearly in the right and Mr. Brown as against him so claiming had no legal right of any kind to retain the buck''s carcass: the tahsildar could if Mr. Brown refused to hand it over, take it and persons assisting him to prevent Mr. Brown from removing the carcass would, provided they did not exercise any more force than was necessary, be doing no illegal act but are protected under the provisions of Section 97 and Section 105. Penal Code. It is therefore of vital importance to try and ascertain whether the tahsildar was bona fide claiming the buck on behalf of the estate.

There is no doubt that Mr. Brown did not understand fully what the tahsildar said: Mr. Brown states that all he gathered was that:

the tahsildar said he (Mr. Brown) had no right to shoot an animal in his garden:

at least this is what Mr. Brown wrote in his first information: or, again, as deposed in his evidence.

the tahsildar asked me "what right I had to shoot a deer in his bagioha (or bagan):

Mr. Brown is not sure of the word used. But, in cross-examination, Mr. Brown says he understood that the tahsildar called himself "Tala Babu" but did not understand the tahsildar to say that Tala Babu had prohibited the shooting of animals in his zamindari. Something therefore was evidently said about "Tala Babu" As a matter of fact "Tala Babu" or more properly "Lala Babu" was the name of the recently deceased master of the tahsildar. So there was evidently some misunderstanding here as to what the tahsildar rsally did say about the raj. Then, again, in cross-examination Mr. Brown says:

I never doubted what they (meaning the tahsildar and Artu) told me namely, that the malik was the Paikpara Estate.

it seems sufficiently clear in my view therefore that, though Mr. Brown did not understand it, the tahsildar was, however discourteous or "truculent" (as Mr. Brown describes it) his manner may have been, saying something about the estate and its owner or late owner, and was claiming the carcass and maintaining that Mr. Brown had no right to shoot on the property or (and as was the case so far as he could have seen) on the edge of this plantation without the raj''s permission.

Jatu, the shikari, who could not: understand Hindustani and admits he does not altogether understand what Mr. Brown says to him but who-did understand Oriya does rot throw much light on what was said particularly as to what passed in Oriya between the tahsildar and others of his party. The tahsildar ordered Chema and a boy to take away the carcass: he (the tahsildar) also asked Mr. Brown "Who had given him permission to shoot"; he (the tahsildar) objected to Mr. Brown appropriating the carcass but did not give at y reason: this was in examination-in-chief. In cross-examination he deposed that the tahsildar said that:

The buck was in his elaka (jurisdiction) : that the elaka was in Lala Babu''s zamindari and they would not allow Mr. Brown to appropriate the body.

The buck was undoubtedly removed to the estate katcheri: poor place though it may be: its body was put in a hut close by, the katcheri building being unmeshed. Now here again one observes something more than a mere unwarranted and purely personal claim to the animal: one sees an enquiry as to whether there had been permission given to shoot and talk of the raj and the raj''s rights.

The other shikaris do not assist at all: Bancha simply states that the tahsildar asked Mr. Brown:

Under whose orders he had shot the deer and took away the deer.

and

Why are you killing a buck here.

Kalu deposes that the tahsildar asked:

Who Mr. Brown wan to shoot deer in this elaka and that they could not allow him to take the deer.

and

Why have you killed a buck in my mauza.

but did not say that shooting of buck had been prohibited: this witness however, thought Mr. Brown was talking in English and says that the tahsildar was speaking Oriya and volunteers that Mr. Brown did not understand what the tahsildar said.

Now at the trial, although the tahsildar filed no written statement, the line of his defence was that he did claim the buck on behalf of the raj having received instructions from the rani to discourage shooting of deer on the estate. A gentleman (D.W. 12) who designates himself as the Household Superintendent of Rani Devendravala Dassi, the Rani of Paikpara, was called as a witness for the defence and he produced a letter (Exhibit 4): he lives in Calcutta. It reads as follows:

Dear Sir, On account of the sudden and premature death of the late Raja Manindra Chandra Bahadur all the members of the Raj family especially the eldest Ranee mother, have been overwhelmed with grief. Over and above that, she is very anxious lest there should be mismanagement regarding the zamindari when the Raja Bahadur is dead. Now I am directed by her to write (to you) that henceforward you shall very carefully perform all work there such as collection etc. You should particularly see that none of your subordinate tahsildars or sadar or muffasil officers ill-treat the tenant and that neither the local tenants nor any outsider kill any harmless creature or animal such as deer etc.

This witness stated that this letter wai written by him, under the direct orders of the rani herself, to the Superintendent of the Paikpar estate at Puri. The raja died on November 3rd and the rani had, at the time of the trial, gone on an extended pilgrimage to Benares, Hardwar (both in United Provinces) and elsewhere in northern India: she left Calcutta about December 14th. An order at the foot of the letter reading:

All the naibs and tahsildars are expected to come to this office before the X''mas holidays. Inform them of the contents of this letter when they come.

was in the handwriting of the General Manager of the estate (who lives at Calcutta) Mr. M.N. Bhattacharjya. The witness deposed that similar instructions had been issued by him to other areas where there is estate property.

The Superintendent of the Paikpara estate in the Pun district was also called (he was D.W. 10) : this gentleman, Mr. Tryambak Kishna Mozumdar, deposed to the receipt by him on December 12th of the letter written by Mr. A.K. Mukhopadhaya and that he communicated its contents to a clerk, who, in the witness'' presence, told all the six local tahsildars, including the accused Padma Cbaran Mahanti its contents and the fact that such communication to the tahsildars had been made was noted by the clerk at the foot of the letter under date 20th December 1922. This witness deceased that his instructions to the tahsildars were that if any gentlemen went on the estate to shoot they (the tahsildars) were to request them not to do so: all the accused were tenants of the estate. Another letter, written on 18th January 1923, (i.e., after the occurrence) by the munshi of the Paikpara estate at Puri, to the General Manager of the estate at Calcutta was also produced.

Now if these letters were not fabricated they are of very great importance: but the Deputy Magistrate says with regard to the first that it is not at all satisfactorily proved to be genuine and with regard to the second that it may likewise have been manufactured for the purposes of this case : the estate was financing the defence. He attaches therefore little weight to them and concludes by saying that, even if the letters were genuine, the instructions were not to prohibit but only to discourage the shooting of deer on the property : I am not personally sure that there is very much in any such distinction. The Sessions Judge does not, so far as I can see, refer to these documents so; I suppose he must have been content to regard the finding of the District Magistrate as to their being fabricated as substantially correct or that, apart from them the case against the tahsildar must any how fail. I am not so clearly certain that, under the circumstances, they were forgeries.

The District Magistrate in his judgment states that the black buck''s body was not claimed by the tahsildar on behalf of the estate at all "as his whole conduct and that of Artu Rautra and the rest shows". The Sessions Judge however considers that the evidence does not warrant the conclusion that the tahsildar''s claim was a mere pretence or warrant at any rate, such a conclusion with the certainty which would be required to support his conviction upon a basis of his exercising a purely personal and illegal claim. I am inclined to agree here with the Sessions Judge: owing to the fact that Mr. Brown did not understand fully what the tahsildar said. I do not think it can be stated with certainty that the tahsildar was not claiming the buck on behalf of his employers. If his instructions were to discourage shooting and he was confronted with the fact that a buck had been in fact killed almost at his own door I think he would not unnaturally claim the body as the only method of carrying out his orders. But in any case there was clearly talk by him to Mr. Brown about the estate, absence of Mr. Brown''s permission to shoot his own area of the estate over which he had control and a claim to the carcass and I cannot think that under those circumstances it can with any certainly be said that the tahsildar''s claim was purely personal. If, then, there is no satisfactory evidence that the tahsildar''s claim was a personal one, the presumption that it was made on behalf of his employers must be drawn in favour of the tahsildar: that claim is not illegal and in consequence, the charge as framed against the tahsildar of being a member of an unlawful assembly (the common--and unlawful--object of which was to compel Mr. Brown to do what he was not legally bound to do, namely, to relinquish a wild black buck which he had shot and killed) must fail. Nor would there be any thing illegal in the accused Chema removing, under the tahsildar''s instructions, the carcass to the tahsildar''s premises or katcheri. Nor, however regrettable it may be, is there anything criminal in an uncouth, vulgar or, as Mr. Brown designates it, "truculent" attitude: nor would there be anything criminal in the tahsildar''s co-villagers actively or passively assisting him in carrying out his object of taking possession of the dead animal.

One may then, pass on to the scene at the katcheri to which the whole party went: there is certainly evidence that Mr. Brown''s accompanying the tahsildar was resented but that is not surprising for Mr. Brown was wrongly confident that in law the buck belonged to him and was determined to get it back: and this intention the tahsildar and the villagers evidently understood and were equally determined to resist: in fact they thought there was going to be trouble, which Mr. Brown did not. Artu''s behaviour seems to have been extremely rude even from the earliest stages of the affair. It will, I think, be here convenient to get rid of the case of Banchanidhi Paikrai, the so-called president The District Magistrate, whilst convicting him, only does so because he was present, and was "one of the jeering crowd", and did not exercise his influence in favour of Mr. Brown until Artu had actually bit Mr. Brown: but, as the Sessions Judge points out, there is obviously no sort of case of any kind against the president if the tahsildar had a right to take the buck. There is, in. my view no ground whatever for contemplating a reversal of his acquittal by the Sessions Judge and his case need no longer be considered. He may have been discourteous but does not seem to have been guilty of any criminal offence.

[His Lordship then dealt with Mr. Brown''s attempt to take back the buck and proceeded:]

Artu in his defence put forward a story that the buck shot by Mr. Brown was a tame animal belonging to him: but this story was quite exploded and was not credited either by the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge although it was vigorously pressed at the trial. Artu, however, denied having hit Mr. Brown but the evidence that he did so is overwhelming. The Sessions Judge criticizes Mr. Brown''s evidence as to his injuries as, though Mr. Brown spoke of only having received two blows, one on the right and the other on the left hand, the Medical Officer found three injuries on the left hand only. The Sessions Judge thought that Artu acted in self-defence; that he was provoked by something Mr. Brown said to him; that he did not exceed his right of private defence but that, even if he did exceed such right, the nine days'' imprisonment which he had already undergone was sufficient punishment I do not find myself in agreement here, with the Sessions Judge. I can see no sort of justification for Artu''s attack on Mr. Brown with his lathi. Mr. Brown may have been in the wrong but he was defenceless and was unarmed and Artu''s attack was a savage, repeated and unnecessary assault: and his chase of Mr. Brown afterwards shows well its and his rough character. Civility, even under provocation is a sign of culture and not even of very late culture. Although I do not see how he could be convicted u/s 147 I am of the opinion that he was clearly guilty u/s 323. I consider that his acquittal on this charge was altogether wrong, perverse and mistaken; that he had no sort of excuse to use a lathi; that the appeal against his acquittal on this charge should be allowed and that his conviction by the Magistrate confirmed, that he should be convicted of an offence under 3. 323 and'' should undergo six months'' rigorous imprisonment. Apparently the Magistrate found him, rightly, guilty of the charge u/s 426, relating to Mr. Brown''s topee, but no definite finding or conviction under that section, and certainly no sentence, were recorded against him by the District Magistrate and that charge seems, as the Sessions Judge notes, to have been dropped: nor was it raised before us, so need not be here considered.

As for the tahsildar it is difficult to find any evidence of a satisfactory nature which places him, at the katcheri, so far as the charges framed against him in connection with Section 147 or Section 149 read with Section 323 are concerned in any worse legal position than he was when at the spot where the buck was killed. No one can or does say what his remarks to Artu before the assault were. Mr. Brown admits that he does not know and Jatu did not hear it: he had nothing in his hand and took no part in the pursuit. It is true that Mr, Brown says that the tahsildar was egging Artu on or to use Mr. Brown''s words "instigating him to continue his threatening attitude" and that the tahsildar was insulting: the shikari Jatu who was on the spot does not say that, the tahsildar urged or ordered Artu to assault Mr. Brown though P.W. 6 (who was a long vay away) says the tahsildar did tell Artu to hit Mr. Brown, and so does P.W. 7, who, however, was also a long way off. But in any case the two charges as framed against the tahsildar were dependent upon the common object of forcing Mr. Brown to give up the buck: but, as has been pointed out before, that object was not proved to have been illegal in this case.

It is conceivable that the tahsildar might have been charged with abetting Artu in or instigating Artu to assault Mr. Brown: but he was not so charged nor was he called to meet any such charge. However, such considerations are not more than academic as no appeal in his case is before this Court as owing to his having disappeared he has not been served with notice of these proceedings.

With regard to the accused Udayanath Barjena, his defence was an alibi; but it failed. But the part he took consisted, only, so far as I can gather (he is not identified by Mr. Brown), in having as the District Magistrate puts it been "a member of the jeering crowd" and, when Mr. Brown fled, to have run with the crowd; he had nothing in h s hand: but as with the tahsildar the only charges framed against him depended upon the existence of the common and alleged unlawful object of depriving Mr. Blown of the buck and of those charges he certainly cannot be convicted. As to whether any other charge could have been maintained against him such as attempting to assault Mr. Brown or abetting Artu in assaulting Mr. Brown, I am extremely doubtful. With regard, to Chema Bhoi the same remarks apply as in the case of Udayanath Barjena: but he was a servant of the raj, under the tahsildar''s orders and, apparently in charge of the polang plantation: he seems to have had a small stick (not a lathi but locally called a bari) in his hand; he is said to have run with the crowd when Mr. Brown fled: he, at the tahsildar''s orders, helped to carry the buck to the katcheri: but his position is perhaps little better and certainly no worse than that of Udayanath Barjena: Chema put forward a kind of alibi which, however, no one credited.

The last accused Bhagi Doohoori is much in the same position as the previous two: his alibi completely broke down and there is no doubt that he ran with the party when Mr. Brown ran: he had nothing in his hand but seems to have demanded greedily money from Jatu if the pursuit of Mr. Brown was called off: but he was not charged with any offence on that score as perhaps he might well have been.

Although the whole matter reflects most unfavourably upon the behaviour of all the accused I do not see how, except in the case of Artu, the Sessions Judge could, on the evidence on the record, have come to any other conclusion (save with regard to Artu) than that he must allow the appellants'' appeals and quash the convictions upon the charges as framed upon which they had been found guilty by the District Magistrate. I am not at all sure however that these men, or some of them, might not have had maintained against them successfully other charges but. I am certainly not at this date, more than a year after the occurrence, prepared to recommend that any of the persons whose cases are now under consideration before us should now be prosecuted again in respect of other offences or to formulate my view of what offences, if any, they might on the evidence be possibly successfully proceeded against.

The result, therefore, will be that the appeals made on behalf of the Crown will be dismissed except in the case of the acquittal of Artu Rautra u/s 323. That appeal will be allowed; Artu Rautra is convicted under that Section and sentenced to undergo six months'' rigorous imprisonment from the date when he shall now enter goal.

Adami, J.

I agree.