chiralashooting035529mbp

8/7/2019 chiralashooting035529mbp

1/95


2/95


3/95


4/95


5/95


6/95


7/95

PREFACE

The public are doubtless aware ofthe happenings at Chirala on 14-2-38. Chi-rala Perala are two contiguous villagesin the Guntur Dt . ( Andhra desa } which be-came wellknown in the C. D. Movement of1921-for the exodus the people thereof had

organized as a protest against the muni-cipality that was forced on them duringthe days of the Panagal ministry. At Chi-rala, the I L.T.D. Co. Ltd. (Imperial LeafTobacco DeYelopment Company Limited) whichis a worldwide organization and influen-tially

supportedby highplacedpolitician-financiers have a factory which engage^some thousands of workers.

There was a labour strike in Februarylast, a sequel of which was the ShootingIncident on the fourteenth Feb. The Madras

Government at, first intended to send theirLabour Commissioner Mr. H. V. RutherfordI. C. S. t,o enquire into the affair but inview of the widespread feeling against theappointment of one who had been 011 the spota couple of days before the tragic events , aJudge of the High Court of Madras, theHon'ble Justice Horwill, I.C.S. was appoin-ted to conduct the enquiry which proved to benot a judicial enquiry but a summary enquiryby a Judicial Off icer . There was deep disappo-intment at the inadequacy and one-sidedness


8/95

ii

of the enquiry and it was hoped that .there!would be a last chance since the Govern-

ment had still to pass their final -orders.But the G.O. published virtually endorsedthe findings of Justice Horwill's report,and caused disappointment and distressover the Andhradesa. A legal examination ofthe Report and the G.O. which is embodied

in these pages and a copy of which was pre-viously submitted to the President Parlia-

mentary Board, is now published for theinformation of the public in accordancewith a resolution passed by

The Working Committeeof the

Andhra Provincial Congress Committee.


9/95


10/95


11/95

MEMORANDUMON THE CBIRALA FIRING INCIDENT.

The Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Companyis a Company incorporated in England and operating

mostlyin

Guntur District, which is a large productioncentre for tobacco The Company has a Factory atChirala where tobacco leaf is cured for exportation. TheFactory employs about five thousand labourers, who aregiven work in the season i. e. f from January to August.March is the month when they do the largest businessand the present trouble occurred on 14th February.

The Factory was started in 1923, but it had no

Labour Union. In October 1937 a Labour Union wasformed and it was registered on 11 1 1938, The Com-pany was not prepared to recognise the Union and wouldnot pay any attention to the demands put forward by theLabour Union on behalf of the workers.

On the 8th. February 1938, the management dismi-ssed two employees. This resulted in a demonstrationof stoppage of work by the employees within the Factoryand counter-measures by the management which deve-loped the situation for the 14th. February 1938, the dayof the firing incident. The view to be taken of the eventsfrom 8th to 13th (both days inclusive) is one of the ma-tters in controversy. The Labourers claim that therewas a lock-out from the 9th. and the Company allegesthat there was a strike; whichever was the true view ofthe situation, admittedly, there was no untoward inci-dent of any kind between 8th to 1 3th. and the atmospherewas absolutely peaceful. The police were on the scenefrom the 9th and the Reserve police were brought in fromthe 10th.

On the 13th evening tho Minister for Labourarrived, but was unablo to get the management to agreeto the terms for a settlement and left that night.


12/95

The Official version of the happenings of the 1 4th.ia a0 follows:

After the failure of the Minister to effect a settle-ment, moat of the labourers felt disappointed and decidedto return to work. On the morning of 14th. a few hundredreturned to work, but there was vigorous and forciblepicketing. In the afternoon at 1-30 P. M. about three orfour thousand labourers gathered at the factory gates. Halfof them were for going in and the other half for keeping

out, The persons who were for keeping out were forciblypreventing the other group from going in. A womancooly who wanted to go in was molested. The police Ins-pector, the two Sub Inspectors and 15 ordinary policearrived on the scene and were trying to control thecrowd. There was stone-throwing at the police. Agroup of labourers threatened to break open the closedfactory gates and to destroy the property inside. ThePolice Inspector ordered a lathi charge and pushed backthe crowd and cleared the front of the factory to som*distance. He had sent for the Bub-Collector and theDy. 8. P. and the Reserve Police who arrived on the spot.The crowd was again advancing on the police. 40% ofthe crowd were females and 60% males About fifty percent of the crowd had sticks, chisels, knives and othermissiles in their hands They were throwing stones atthe rate of 50 to 60 per minute. The Sub-Collectorordered three successive lathi

charges.At each lathi

charge the crowd was retreating to some distance andwhen the police fell back was advancing aggressively onthem. Again throwing stones etc, one person was foundjust behind the Joint Magistrate with a chisel in handand the same was wrested from him. The police weremoving up and down, controlling the crowd. As a resultof the successive lathi charges the crowd had been pushedaway to a distance of about a furlong from the factorygate& 'One portion of the crowd gathered towards tberailway line and a section of the police proceeded thereand charged them. The Circle Inspector who came onthe spot felt that the Police were m danger of beingoverwhelmed. He accordingly opened fire and firedthree shots. One person fell down and immediatelypicked himself up and ran away. A few minutes there-


13/95

after, the Joint Magistrate arrived on the spot, foundthe situation dangerous He found that a section of thecrowd was going round to the rear of the police andattempted to out-flank. Fearing that himself and thepolice would be surrounded and out-flanked and fearingalso that the crowd might proceed to the bungalows ofthe employers and to the factory and destroy life andproperty, he gave an order to fire after the usual warning.Two pertons fell down dead. As a result of the firstfiring, two received injuries of which one died a few dayslater in the hospital.

Thus,in all, three

personsdied as a

result of the shootings.

To test the correctness or otberwine of this officialversion the following points have to be considered indetail

(1) What was the situation on the fore-noon of ths14th? Was there forcible pocketing?

(2) What was the nature of the crowd io theafternoon ? Was it armed with sticks, knivesand chisels T

(3) Were there two hostile groups at the factorygates in the afternoon ?

(4) What were the movements of the mob in theafternoon ?

(5) What were the distances from the factory gatesat which the respective lathi charges were deli-vered and the two firings respectively took place?

(6) Was the mob in the afternoon aggressive ? Whatwere the various acts of aggression committedby the mob? What is the correct view asregards the acts of stone throwing, advancingon the police and out-flanking movements attri-buted to tho mob ?

(7) The circumstances relating to each of the twofirings and the justification for each firing.

(8) The nature of the wounds received at the firingsifc conclusions therefrom.


14/95

FORENOON OF THE 14th, FEBRUARY.

WAS THERE FORCIBLE PICKETING tThe finding in the Horwill Report is aa follows:*

"The Circle Inspector, the Sub Inspectors ofChirala and Tungutur were on duty at the factory fromthe early morning, They had anticipated trouble becauseof the discontent existing among the workers after theHonourable Mr. Giri left on the

eveningof the 13th.

On the 14th. morning the Joint Magistrate and theDy. Superintendent of Police had seen that forcible picke-ting was going on and they feared that things wouldworsen as tha day went on. f '

The evidence relating to this is as follows:-

The First Information Report submitted by the

Joint Magistrate Mr. Carleston after the firing states thus:

"That morning (14th) I watched the streets inthe vicinity of the factory about the time the coolieswere expected to go to work. A number of coolies weregoing to the factory, but were being dissuaded by theso-called peaceful picketing. I had to prevent somepeople being physically obstructed and I also took awayfour sticks (two of them deadly weapons) from peoplepresent near the factory. However in spite of picketing,I anticipated no serious trouble. Some 50 coolies wentin to work.

"

The Joint Magistrate in his evidence before theHon'ble Mr. Justice Horwill says:

" On the 14th morningat 6 A. M. I saw intensive picketing and saw one manusing physical force. Thousands were then present.

Mr. Yegaanarayana addressed a meeting at about 8-30A. M, By that time at least 400 to 500 had gone to work.I thought that there was then no further immediateapprehension of trouble and went away with the DySuperintendent of Police. The Circle Inspector remainedon duty. I visited the town to see that ail was quiteI was present at noon and nothing untoward occured then."


15/95

The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Mr. P. SourirajaluNaidu in his evidence says:

" At 6 A. M. there were thousands near the factorypreventing labourers from entering the factory. 4050 ofthem were armed with sticks About 1000 werepresent at 6 A. M. 30 or 40 were picketing. The othersweie excited and shouted " Don't allow anybody to getinto the factory.

"I went after-wards to maintain order

in the town I Raw workers armed with sticks preventingothers from

working.I

apprehended dangerif we should

attempt to disarm the men. "

The Circle Inspector Rao Sahib B. L. Narayana Raoeays:

"At about 6 A. M. on the 14th 2000 to 3000 peoplegathered. Some were picketing using force and lathies.That continued for about an hour. Some coolies wentinto the

factory.The others went to attend a

meetingIS furlonga away held by Mr. Yegnanarayana. My Sub-Inspector was present, but not I. The meeting lasteduntil 10-30 A. M. The spirits of the people were raisedby this meeting. They eoerned excited. They weresaying that they would not allow the labourers to enterthe factory at 2 P. M "

Mr. Boatfield, the Manager of the factory deposedas follows:

" On the 14th. I went to the factory at 6-30 A. M.650 coolies came to work that morning with about 12"A" and "B" class. There were groups picketing on theroad and kept some back I went home at noon. Therewere then many picketers about and police were patro-lling".

The Sub Inspector of Police, Chirala, Mr. J NarayanaMurthi deposed as follows :

"At 6 A, M I, the Circle Inspector and the JointMagistrate went towards the factory. There was a crowdot 2000 - 3000. Some were preventing others from goingto work, 4 sticks were seized ".


16/95

6

The evidence above set purports to make out thatthere was forcible picketing on the morning of the 14th.

with sticks etc. The Joint Magistrate and the Sub-Ins-pector say that four sticks were seized. The Dy. Super-intendent of Police says that he saw 30 to 40 with sticks,but did not disarm them as he apprehended danger if bemade the attempt. This conflict in the evidence throwsvery great doubt on the existence of any sticks in thehands of the labourers, at any rate, to any appreciableextent. Mr. Boatfield, the company Manager does notspeak to any forcible picketing by use of physical forceor the use of sticks for picketing. The picture as drawnby the Joint Magistrate in his evidence is an improve-ment over that given by him in his First InformationReport.

The Joint Magistrate both in his evidence and inthe First Information Report is positive that ho appre-hended no serious trouble This is sufficient to show

that if there was any picketing at all, it could not havebeen either forcible or intensive, and that the finding ofMr, Justice Horwill in his report that there was forciblepicketing on the morning of the 14th. cannot bemaintained*

Admittedly, there was a meeting of the labourersat about 8-30 A. M. in the morning about H furlongsaway from the factory. The distance at which the mee-ting was held is some indication that they wera anxiousto avoid any scope for trouble near the factory gates.Mr. Yegnanarayana, the President of the Labour Union,addressed the meeting and it is in the evidence of one ofthe company's witnesses, T. Jwalapathy, that the Presi-dent advised them at the mooting not to go to thefactory ,

The Circle Inspector says that people were sayingat the meeting that they would not allow the labourersto enter the factory, but the witness Jwalapathy, whoattended the meeting does not say a word about thesethreate. On the other hand he says " We decided tofollow his (President'^) advice" i.e., "Not to go to thefactory";


17/95

If as the Cirole Inspector says there were threatsfrom those assembled at the meeting that they would notallow the labourers to enter the factory, it is improbablethat the Joint Magittrate would not hav* been informedabout it and it is inconceivable that some effective preven-tive measures would not have been taken such as an orderunder Section 144 Criminal Procedure Code or the like.

On the other hand, the joint Magistrate left withthe impression that no trouble need be anticipated.

It i* clear, therefore, that th situation on the fore-noon of the 14th was quite peaceful. The suggestionthat 'there was forcible picketing or that the peopleassembled at the meeting were uttering threats that theywould not allow the labourers to enter the factory" isan after-thought. On the other hand, the Presidentadvised the labourers " not to go to the factory

"appa-

rently meaning not to go near the factory and the labou-rers had decided to abide by his advice. The meetingterminated at 10-39 A. M. There is no evidence that any-thing happened between 10-30 A. M. and 1-30 P. M. tochange the situation.

AFTER-NOON OF THE 14th FEBRUARY 1938.NATURE OF THE CROWD.

(a) It is necessary first to have a clear idea ae to thenature and composition of the crowd in the afternoon.First Information Report of the Joint Magistrate describesthe crowd as " a huge and aggressive mob from whichwas com ID g a rain of huge stones ".

In his evidence the Joint Magistrate says


18/95

8

The Circle Inspector deposed:" At 1 P. M. there

were 40005000 present { at the factory gate ) whileothers were coming from the road and the railway line.About 50 Yerukula men and women were abusing thosegoing in filthy language

Stones were thrown from all directions by the mob.About 100 persons rushed to the gate saying that

"they

would break it open and beat labourers and destroyproperty.

"

"Saw the Sub Inspector catch a man with a chisel""

I saw some armed with knives " " There were about twomen to one woman. "

The Circle Inspector also spoke to stone throwingby the mob at various stages.

Mr, Boatfield, thecompany manager, says:

" Atabout 1-15 P. M. I heard a great noise of an angry crowdoutside the factory gate. I heard many stones fallingon the factory fence. At 1-55 P, M. I went by car to thefactory.

" He does not say that he saw any of the crowdthrowing other missiles at 1-55 P M. when he went intothe factory.

Mr. C. W, Gemmet, one of the Directors of theCompany says "At 1-30 P.M. on tho 14th I walked tothe factory through the crowd coming from east. Heardatones falling on corrugated iron. Seen full bricks, halfbricks and Jagged pieces of cuddappah slabs. Many in thecrowd around the gate had sticks and branches of trees".

The Village Munsiff of Epuripalem deposed"

I sawa crowd of Erukulas running away. I saw 2 with sicklesand 5 to 6 with sticks.

They ordinarilly carry sickles".

The Sub-Inspector of Police spoke about stone-throwing at various stages and be also said that he sawa man with a chisel holding it at his side behind the JointMagistrate and that he snatched away the chisel, butthat the man escaped.


19/95

The Dy. Superintendent of Police says:"

50% of the crowd in the afternoon was armedwith sticks. A man was moving among us with achisel ".

Sergeant Reilly- the police sergeant, who was incharge of the two sections of the reserve police, the lathisection, and the rifle section 15 in each, spoke as follows:-

" The stones were thrown by the crowd at the rateof 50 to 60 a minute. I saw one man with a butcher'sknife, at least a dozen with chisels. More than a hun-dred with sticks in the crowd immediately round us".

" The crowd was picking up stones from the perma-nent way. Hundreds of stones were falling

" " 1 shouldsay that 3 men in ten had sticks " I saw no policemanstruck with a stick " " I did not tell anybody about the

chisels "."

No man told me that they had been hit. withsticks. "

Mr. Justice Horwill states in his report that hewas impressed with the evidence of Sergeant Reilly andapparently accepts his version about the crowd when hesays in the report: "Many of the men being armed withsticks and some even with chisels and knives. " This viewis clearly untenable.

The Joiat Magistrate himself says that he did notsee any sticks in the afternoon.

There is no mention in the First Information Reportof the crowd in the afternoon having any sticks or knives.As to the chisel (apart from the fact that the VillageMunsiff of Epuripalem says that Yerukulas ordinarilycarry sticks) the story given is an improbable one viz.,

that a man with a chisel came behind the Joint Magi-strate, that the chisel was caught, but the man escaped.At any rate nobody except Sergeant Reilly spoke of morethan this one chisel

It is very clear therefore that the story about sticks,chisels and knives is a sheer exaggeration. This is also


20/95

10

borne out by the fact that even according to the woundcertificate of the police ( whoso genuineness is challengedon the Labour Union side ) all the wounds were onlyabrasions and contusions and there is not even one injuryor hurt, euch as would result from tho use of chisels orknives or sticks It is impossible also to imagine that anaggressive crowd, if it had these weapon**, as tho officialversion suggests, would have kept them without makinguse of the same.

WERE THERE TWO HOSTILE GROUPSAT THE FACTORY GATE?

The next question requiring consideration la whe-ther in the afternoon at or after 1-15 P M. there wore atthe factory gates two groups of labourers with oppositopurposes. The report finds that " a number of workershad returned to work on the morning of the 14th andmany more were ready to return in the afternoon andmany also went there to prevent the others from retur-ning to work Three thousand to six thousand mengathered round the factory between 1 P. M. and 2 P. M.While many of the workers were desirous of returningto work, others were determined to prevent them fromdoing BO ".

The actual evidence, however, relating to theexistence, nature and composition of a group intent onpreventing any labourers trom going into the factorybetween 1 P. M. and 2 P: M. is as follows: In the FirstInformation Report there la no mention of the existenceof any such two groups with conflicting purposes or ofany conflict between two groups. The First Informa-tion Report only speaks ot the 'existence of a hugeaggreeesive mob at the

factory gatesfrom whose stone

throwing the Circle Inspector and the party of Policewere defending themselves".

The Joint Magistrate in his evidence bafore theEnquiry Officer says nothing about the existence ofconflict between the groups.


21/95

11

The Circle Inspector in his deposition says asfollows:

" About 50 Yerukula men and women were abusingthose going in filthy language

" " A Wodda woman com-plained that she had been beaten since she wanted to goto the factory

*' No such Wodda woman has beenexamined as a witness.

Mr. Boatfield, the company manager, who wentinto the

factoryat 1-55 P.

Mdoes not

ppeakto the

existence of two conflicting groups nor does Mr. Gemmet,a Director of the company, who walked into the factorythrough the crowd at 1-30 P. M. without any trouble ordifficulty,

A clerk of the company, Mr. G Venkateswarulusays as follow?:

"Crowds gathered at about 1-30 P. M Just as thebugle was about to sound some sand was thrownThe crowd that had gathered intended to come to work, butthere were picketers trying to prevent them from doingso Thousands of people were around the factory at1-30 P.M There was no distrubance at 1-15".

Another clerk of the company, Jwalapathi, saysas follows :

"There was a whistle at 1-30. About 4000 menflocked to the gate to return to work About 4 to 5 malecoohea stood on the branch-siding and with a big bamboostruck to the ground to terrify the men They thenthrew sand to drive me back fifteen to sixteen times, Ahalf were willing to work and a half were against it".This witness's evidence is self-contradictory since he

says at first that 4000 men flocked to return back towork and later on says that half were willing to workand half against it Even he does not say that the halfthat was against indulged in any positive acts of preven-tion. All that he says is 4 to 5 male coolies were stri-king a bamboo stick on th ground at the branch-siding( which admittedly is at some distance from the factory


22/95

12

gate ) and that they threw sand. This story of strikingbamboo on the ground to terrify is puerile.

The Sub-Inspector of Police, J. Narayanamurthysays:

"I went near the factory at 1-15. I noticed a crowd

of 4000 to 5000 persons in front of the factory. Somewere obstructing and abusing A woman complainedof being beaten and showed broken bangles A bandof Yerukalas, women mostly, were abusing those whowere going and said that they had no union as the Yeru-kalas had. Those who did not want to

go threw sand onthose who did. Later, stoned were thrown ".

Neither the Dy Superintendent of Police nor Ser-geant Reilly speak to the existence of conflict betweentwo hostile groups.

Of the two women witnessess examined for theUnion, one by name Sowbhagyam stated; " Nobodyobstructed people going into the factory on the 14thFebruary." Another by name Anjamnla during the crossexamination stated ( in answer to a leading question )that " at 3 P. M, several people gathered at the gates ofthe factory and obstructed those that were prepared toenter the factory for works".

The above is all the evidence on the questionwhether or not there were two .hostile groups at thefactory gates between 1-15 and 2 P. M. The evidence isfar too insufficient to establish the existence of twosuch hostile groups or of any conflict therefrom. Allthat appears of the evidence is fully believed at its facevalue is that a few Yerukulas ( women) were abusing orthrowing sand and that a few men were beating theground with sticks; and that this kind of molestationwas at some distance from the iactory gates. Theofficial evidence as given makes it clear that the entirecrowd that gathered at the factory gates had all comethere to go in for work. One of the company's witnesses,G. Venkateswarulu, says:

"They (the labourers) said that

he (the Head Clerk) who was the Vice-President of theUnion had represented to them that the Union and thefactory came to an agreement and that all could return


23/95

13

to work that afternoon. The crowd that had gatheredintended to come to work".

One of the witnesses examined for the Unionnamely Anjamtna deposed that "One Iyer (meaningthe Head Clerk) wanted them to go to the factory onthe ground that a compromise had been effected." Thiswas corroborated by the evidence of the other witnessesfor the Union namely Sowbhagyam. Joseph and Seshayyaall of them labourers and one Mr. Williams, an ex-

Municipal Councillor of Chirala. This was in a sensealso admitted by the said Head Clerk Ramakrishna Ayyarhimself in his evidence when he said that on the 14that 3-30 P. M. he heard a wild cry that he was responsiblefor the firing and also in his evidence as reported in theHindu that he advised the workers that afternoon toresume work. In this connection it is significant to notethat the Dy. Superintendent of Police in his evidencestates that ''the Joint

Magistrateand himself while

patrolling the town between 1 and 2 P. M. saw a crowdin front of the Head Clerk's house, the Head Clerk wasdoing Namaekarams to them and asking them to go away,the Joint Magistrate asked him if he was in trouble andhe replied that he was not". In the Head Clerk's evidenceas reported in the Hindu, it appears that

" the companyserved him with a registered notice that he would be dis-missed if he did not report himself for duty before

Monday " the 14th February. He appears to have goneto the factory at 11 A. M. and returned at 12 noon.

From the above summary of the evidence, it isclear that the crowd that gathered at the factory gatesin the afternoon were all of them lured to go there by thefalse report sedulously circulated by the Head Clerk,who was the Vice-President of the Union and that there

was no separate group (or at any rate any appreciablemagnitude) with a conflicting purpose If thia view ofthe situation is correct the substantial basis for the reportof Mr. Justice Horwill falls to the ground, because in hisview the trouble on the 14th afternoon started owing tothe conflicl between the opposing sections of labourersat the factory gates and that on the intervention of the


24/95

14

police in an attempt to maintain order there as" a con-

sequent change in the object of the crowd's animosityfrom their fellow workers to the Police ". If JusticeHorwilFs view is correct, when one section of the crowdturned their hostility to the police what became of theother equally numerous section ? Did they also coalescewith the hostile group and why should they ? Again ifthere were two equally numerous groups at one spot withconflicting purposes, it is remarkable that no actual con-flict occured between them and no injuries on one section

by stone-throwing or other aggressive acts by the othersection.

MOVEMENTS OF THE MOB IN THE AFTERNOON.

The movements of the mob in bare outline between1-30 and S P. M. according to the official case is asfollows :

There was a huge crowd of about 5 to 6 thousandmen at the factory gate at about 1-30 P. M. They werecleared by a lathi charge carried out by the ordinarypolice and the crowd was pushed back to a distance.The Joint Magistrate and the Reserve came on the sceneand they delivered a lathi charge as a result of whichone section of the mob went towards Stuart pur am sideof the factory and the main section proceeded along theroad and was pushed up to Municipal limits. The sectionof the crowd which went to the Stuartpuram side num-bering about a 1000 was attempting to come back to thescene. The Dy. Superintendent of Police finding this wentaway with a section of the police to control that groupand he effectively kept them under check and there wasno further trouble from that side. The main section ofthe crowd which went along tbe road up to the Peralalimit*) and which was probably about 4 to 5 thousandstrong is said to have split into two and the major portionof that group is stated to have crossed over to the mainrailway line and gathered near the huts to the west oftbe main railway line, as a result of these successivelathi charges that were delivered by the Reserve Police.There were two firings, one under the Circle Inspector's


25/95

15

orders and another under the Joint Magistrate's ordersand both the firings were directed towards the samegroup, which had gathered near the main.

DISTANCES FROM THE GATE AT WHICH THELATHI CHARGES WERE DELIEVERED AND

THE FIRINGS TOOK PLACE.

The accompanying diagram gives a rough idea ofthe local situation ( It is unfortunate that though theEnquiry Officer made a local inspection no plan is attachedto the report and a great deal of the evidence is difficultto follow without a complete understanding of the localsituation )

THE FIRST LATHI CHARGE.

This was ordered by the Police Circle Inspector atthe

factory gatebefore the arrival of the

Reserve,the

Sub-Collector and the Dy. Superintendent of Police. Hesays in his deposition that

" he cleared a space of 20 to30 yards from the gate ".

Mr. Boatfield, the company manager, says in hisevidence "at about 1*45 there was a lathi charge whichdrove the crowd back to 30 to 40 yards. At 1-55 I wentby car to factory. There was no crowd within 100to 150 yards ".

The company Directior Mr. Gemtnet says asfollows :-

" Saw lathi charge at 1-40 P. M. Part of the crowdwent east 100 to 150 yards and part west for 300 to 400yards down road ".

An Engine Driver T. C. De Solver examined as anofficial witness says that at 1-49 P. M, he saw the mob at40 to 50 yards from the factory and the police at thefactory.

The Sub-Inspector of Chirala deposes that at thefirst lathi charge

"space was cleared for 50 yards ".


26/95

16

It ii not dear in the above whether the evidenceof Mr. Boatfield and Mr. Qemmet refers to the first lathicharge, or to a later lathi charge. Very probably the evi-dence of Mr. Boatfield refers to the first lathi charge,and of Mr. Gemmet to the second. If BO, thecrowd was driven away by the first lathi charge to adistance of about 150 yards. The official witnesses alladmit that the space was cleared for about 50 yards andas will be seen later they in giving the distances havebeen very much trying to minimise the same.

SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH LATHI CHARGES.

It is not possible to distinguish clearly in the evi-dence the respective distances to which the crowd wasdriven as a result for each of these lathi charges, but itclearly establishes that aa a result of these three lathi

charges the crowd was driven away beyond the Paralatoll gate which would appear to be somewhere near twoand a half fourlongs of the factory.

The evidence is as follows :

The first information report says" we ( Police )

had got them (crowd) to a point where the houses ofPerala begin The mob advanced up to the road andhad to be driven back about the same places beforeThe mobs on the road had again to be driven back andwe got to the place where we had driven it beforeA bigger mob collected on the branch railway line behindsome huts ".

The Joint Magistrate in his evidence says that thepoint where the houses of Perala begin as mentioned inhis First Information Report was about 100 to 150 yards.

But Mr Gemmet, a director of the company who hadcertainly local knowledge says as follows:- "About 500yards separated the crowd, I should say that the crowdto the west went about as far as the Municipal boundaryor a little further " ( This is obviously the same point asthat mentioned in the First Information Report, as thepoint where the houses of Perala begin. ) It is thus clear


27/95

17

from Mr. Gemmet's evidence that the mob down the r6adwas driven to a distance of 2 furlongs at least and rightinto the Municipal limits.

The other evidence on this question is as follows:*

The Joint Magistrate in his deposition says :" We

drove the crowd back three times before firing began.On the first occasion we drove them 50 or 60 yards; onthe second occasion 100 yards It took at least an hourto drive back the* people ".

The Circle Inspector in his deposition says:-

" The mob was at about 15 to 20 yards (presumablyfrom the factory gate) A lathi charge was thenordered by the Jomt Magistrate and the mob dispersed toa distance of 50 to 60 yards We stopped where thesiding

crosses the roadAnother

lathicharge was

or-

dered by the joint Magistrate The mob then retreated about100 yards The mob in front of us again advancedwith stones and the Joint Magistrate ordered anotherlathi charge We drove them back 100 yards. Someof them crossed the railway line They were drivenback towards the huts

M.

The Sub-Iuapector of Police says in his deposition :*

" Lathi charge. Cleared space for 50 yards. Re-serve came. Lathi charge. Eight hundred to thousandwent east and the remainder west. Drove back west upto Mr. Phillip's house 75 yards. ..After the Dy. Superin-tendent of Police left we charged for 120 yards along theroad. We stood just on the factory side of theMunicipal atone ( this is propably the same thing as the

Municipal boundary limit spoken to in Mr. Gemmet'sevidence and mentioned in the First Information Report".)

Sergeant Reilly says: "The Joint Magistrate orde-red us to clear the crowd We drove them back forabout 60 yards... We fell back a few yards and the mobfollowed. We therefore drove the mob nght back beyond


28/95

18

the huts on the right ( this is probably a point muchnearer to the factory than the Municipal limits)*. .Wedrove them about 50 yards beyond the huts ".

The Dy. Superintendent of Police says:" Reserve

arrived. Lathi-charged. Advanced 70 yards. Crowdrallied and threw stones. Second lathi charge. Drovemob beyond huts on the left of the road. (This again isprobably a point much nearer to the factory than theMunicipal limits).

if when the Dy. Superintendent of Police, theSergeant, and Circle Inspector speak of driving thecrowd beyond the limits of the huts to the left of theroad they are thinking of a point much nearer to thofactory than the Municipal toll gate. This evidence isdefinitely conflicting with the evidence of the FirstInformation Report, Mr. Gemmet and tho Sub-Inspectorof Police. There can be no doubt that the later is the

more reliable version being given in the First Informa-tion Report. Hence it would follow that as a result ofone or all the lathi charges the crowd wa driven awayto the other side of the Municipal toll gate, a distanceof 500 yads aa Mr Gemmet says between at least2 to 3 furlongs from the factory.

It is also clear that this point is at some distancefrom the

factorybecause the First

Information Reportmentiond that the Police retreated Bear to the factoryby bus. It may ba noted that as a result of these lathicharges, the road was entirely clear because the Fi^stInformation Report mentions about message having beensent through passers-by to the crowd standing beyondthe toil gate indicating that the road was clear enoughfor people to pass to and fro freely,

It is a matter particularly to be noticed in thisconnection that the story aa given in the deposition ofthe witnessess varies very substantially from that givenin the First Information Report. The First InformationReport says that as a result of the very first lathi chargethe Crowd was driven right up to the Municipal limitsand that two more charges were made to keep back the


29/95

19

crowd to tbat limit. But the evidence depicts the pictureas though the crowd could be driven only by successivelathi charges to greater and greater distances and theattempt of the Police witnesses in the evidence is to bringthis ultimate point much nearer the factory than theFirst Information Report mentions. It is clear that his

developments are intended to create the impression thatthe crowd waft so determined that it had to be driven bysuccessive stages and to obviate the criticism that therewas no need to fire on a crowd which had retired as far

away as nearly two to three furlongs and gone to a sideon the railway some where near about this distance oftwo or three furlongs.

The distance above discussed has reference to themain portion of the crowd which was lathi-charged anddriven along the road. It is said that as a restfit of thelathi charges one portion of the crowd went towards therailway line. The evidence does not make it quite clearat what distance this

portionof

the crowd was as Mr.Gemmet puts it at about 150 yards or " to the end of thefactory compound ".

DISTANCES AT WHICH THE FIRINGS TOOK PLACE.There is confusion in the evidence aa to the exact

position of the crowd at the time of the two firings. Theexistence of two railway lines, one the main line andthe other leading to the factory (branch line) and of threegroups of huts, one group on one side of the road, ano-ther group between the road and the branch line and athird group farther away and beyond the main line,makes it extremely difficult to understand the evidenceas recorded. Thl* confusion is enhanced by witnessesspeaking about the directions 'east* 'west' 'north' 'south'in contradictory terms.

One thing appears fairly clear, that it, that thegroup fired on on both the occasions is the same, namelythe portion of the group which is said to have divideditself off from the main crowd and turned towards therailway line near about the Municipal limits. The officialevidence proceeds on the footing that both the firings tookplace more or less near about the same spot.


30/95

The place where the crowd was at the time of thesecond firing is fairly easily fired. The Sub-Inspectorvery definitely states in his evidence that the two personsfell down dead at post No. 212/1. It is stated (thoughit does not appear on the record) that the post 212/1 isabout three furlongs from the factory and almost directlyto the west of the toll gate. This is corroborated by Com-mission agent Rangayya examined as an official witnesswho states that he was sitting to the east of the Peralatoll gate and that the people fired on were to the west

of him on the railway line near the huts which were tothe west of the toll gate.

With reference to the first firing the position isas follows:- The Circle Inspector's evidence indicates thathe was with a section of the rifles on the road just beforethat time. The exact point on the road where he was isnot very clearly brought out in the evidence. But hisevidence

giveathe

impressionthat he was at the

spotwhere the branch siding crosses the road. At any ratealready by that time the lathi charges against the crowdon the road had been completed and the First InformationReport states that the police had withdrawn themselvesfrom the toll gate by a bus and taken up a position nearthe factory. Consequently the Circle Inspector with hisrifles should have been at a point on the road nearer tothe factory than to the toll gate. It is part of the officialcase that the Circle Inspector heard the cry for helpfrom Sergeant and rushed up to him and joined him in afew minutes. It is also stated that the Joint Magistrateran between the two points to and fro (i. e., between thepoint where the crowd was and the point where therifles were expected to be) and went back in a very shorttime. It, therefore, must have been near enough to theplace where the Circle Inspector with the rifle section was

standing on the road.

The First Information Report mentions the crowdat the time of the first firing a* being on the branch lineand the Joint Magistrate in his evidence that the first

firing was at a point'

to the right of the railway linenorth of the huts '.


31/95

21

It would, therefore, appear that the first firingprobably took place on a crowd situated on or neai to thebranch line, at a short distance from the point wherethe branch line crosses the road. If this is the correctinference from the evidence, this would show that theplace of tho second firing is at some considerable distanceaway from the place of first firing aod farther away fromthe factory.

This conclusion would entail the further inferencethat after the first

firingthu

crowd bad rotreated tosome distance and thereafter, the second firing wasresorted to.

If to the report of Justice Horwill a plan had beenappended and the record of evidence heel left the distil*oticn Irctwecn the various groups of huts and railwaylines clear, it should have, been possible to state the aboveconclusion with absolute confidence.

This much, however, can be asserted with confi-dence viz., that the Sub-Collector's evidence very clearlyindicates the place of first iiring and the place of second

to be somewhere near the brancii railway and atcomparative*/ near to the factory, while the

evidence ot the other witnesses make it quite clear thatthu scene of the first firing and the second firing werenear the main railway line and at a point near to the tollgate more than a furlong away. This i* a very seriousdiscrepancy which has not been even noticed in the reportand which casts grave doubts on the reliability of theentire evidence. It is very significant that the FirrInformation Report does not give any indication of theplace of tho 2nd firing and when the Joint Magistratewas pressed in bis evidence to locate the spot *here thetvto men fell dead as result of the second firirp ho evades

an answer by saying"

It is extremely difficult to pointout

"while every other witness felt no such difficulty.

It would have been useful to know what distancethis firing spot wae from the bungalows of the compen>officials, since one reason for firing is stated in the evi*deuce to be the apprehension that the mob might attack


32/95

22

the bungalows. The evidence however does not suggestthat the firing waa anywhere dangerously near to the

bungalows and Mr. Boatfield, the company Manager, hasstated in his evidence that " he had no information ofany hostile demonstration by the coolies against thebungalows

" and that " the coolies did not demonstrate

against the officers personally."

AGGRESSIVENESS OF THE MOB,

The official evidence is to the following effect :

'A' AT THE FACTOR? GATE.(i) A group of hundred Yerukalas are said to have

been abusing those that were prepared to go into the

factory.

(ii) Some persons were said to have been throwing sand.

(iii) Four or fiva males are said to have been beatinga bamboo stick on the ground to terrify persons fromgoing into the factory.

(iv) One person is said to have come behind theJoint Magistrate with a chisel in hand suggesting thathe was about to make an attempt on the life ot the JointMagistrate.

(v) A number of persons in the mob are said to havewith them sticks, chisels and knives.

(vi) A group of persons spoken to as about 30 byone witness and 100 by another witness are said to have

been crying out that they will go into the factory and*

loot the property.

'B' Stones were being thrown at the policeat

thefactory gate and at the subsequent stages of the move-

ments of the crowd.

C' The crowd was aggressively advancing on the

police at each stage, after each lathi charge, when the

police was returning after tnis charge.


33/95

23

(D) A portion of the crowd made an out-flankingmovement BO as to hem in the police and put them indanger of their lives.

'A' Now with reference to (i) (ii) and (ni) above,the evidence relating thereto has baen dealt with alreadywhen dealing with tha question as to whether there weretwo groups at the factory gates with conflicting purposes.Even if this evidence be true, it was not by itself asspoken to by official witnesses of any such magnitude asto

bringabDut the later situation,

(iv)and

(v)have al-

ready been dealt with when dealing with the questionas to the nature and composition of the crowd. Withregard to (vi) the evidence of any aggressive hostilitytowards the company's officials is as follows:-

The Circle Inspector in his evidence says " About100 persons rushed to the gate saying that they wouldbreak it open, beat labourers and destroy property ".

The Sub Inspector of Police in his evidence says" Twenty to thirty rushed at the gate shouting " throwopen the sate, destroy property ". They rushed againstthH gate

"

No other witness speaks about this nor does theFirst Information Report give any such indication.

Mr. Boatfield, the Manager of the company, saysthat he heard many stones falling on the factory feaceand that he heard the great noise of an angry crowd out-uide the factory gate at 1-35 P. M. He, however, came ininto the factory at 1-55 P. M. without any molestation.which clearly shows that the crowd had no hostilitytowards him.

Similarly*the Director of the

company Mr Gemmetwhile he says that ha heard stones falling on corrugatediron, says also that at 1-30 P. M. he walked to the factorythrough the crowd apparently without any trouble.

Mr. Boatfield in his evidence says"

I had no infor-mation of any hostile demonstration by the cooliesagainst the officers personally ".


34/95

24

In the light of this evidence the evidence of theCircle Inspector and the Sub-Inspector that some personswanted to break into the factory and destroy propertyf wholly imaginary and there was no room at any Magefor any apprehension of danger to the company'* oilicialsor to the factory.

WITH REGARD TO "B "-STONE TIIHOWINQ.

The evidence of the Joint Magistrate, the Circle

Inspector, the Sub-Inspector of Police and of SergeantReilly purports to make out heavy and incessant etont?throwing at the police from about I -SO when the crowdgathered near the factory gates unt/t about. 3 O'clockwhen as a result of the second shooting; two persons feiidown dead, except of course in the intervals when thtmob was under a drive by lathi ciiaiper. Tise evidenceis that about fifty to sixty stoiu pet minute were bempthrown at the police and tome bug* stoned were prcauced

in courts* evidence during the deposition tf the JointMagistrate. The Joint Magistrate also says that at onestage the crowd gave the police a hand-to-hand fightingwith the pelting of atones This story ol the officialwitnesses about the pi'it.r.g ol stone*: dt tH pclico u,sought to Lf corroborated Ly tho t'Viuciicc ui au enginedrivep* a Mr. De Seiver * who says tbat at about J-55 1 M.he saw a mob pelting stones towards \be factory, and bythe evidence of a gangman Papayya. who say that at thetime of firing the mob was throwing stones at the policeThe company manager Mr, Boatiieia says that ho hoaiumany stones failing on the factory ionco and aKo says,that he found the place in front of the factory gates litteredwith stones. The company Director Mr Gemmet say*that he saw full brickr, half bricks and japped pieces ofCuddappab slabs in front of the factory gates. Neitherof them say tbat they actually saw ibe crowd throwingstones at the police. The District Collector, Mr Manave-d*n Raja, say* that when he went for inspection afterthe incident (on the following morning T) he saw anumber of laige stones as well as small atones scatteredin front of the factory in such positions as fcupgefted thai

they had been thrown. A commission agent Kargayyaxtxnined as an official witness, states that after 2*30 P. M-


35/95

25

hearing that there was a disturbance he went nearthe toll gate and sat on a sand heap near the road and

saw the firing five minutes later. He say* that be heardthe poople saying that the crowd were throwing stones,but it is curious that he did not pee what the crowd wasdoing immediately before the firing and does not speakto having seen any stone throwing A clerk of the com-pany Venkateswarulu says that stones were thrown onthe police and on the gates ( of the factory ). Anotherclerk of the company by name Jwalupathi also pays thatthere

was jeltiDgof stones at the

factory gates,

The First Information Report refers to the crowdnear tbo factory gates as a

"huge and aggressive mob*

from which was coming a rain of huge stcncs ". TheFirst Information Report aiso states: "stones werealso falling rrcm all directions aroucd my (Joint Magi-strateV) cnr which was hit Federal times ard leers the

marksof it".

The First Information Report pays lateron " They ( tho cro^d ) replied with a hail of etones fromthe railway road ".

If is noteworthy, however, that tho Fjrst Jnfor-inaticn Re;>ort dors not mention any storp-tl rowicg bythe erowd on tho road after the first lathi chaise by thereeerxo pohro driving them up to the toll jrate limit*.The First Information Report states that ( ae o refuteof tho first hthi charge by the roeene ) "The mair partsof tho crowd went down the road foUowirg by thereserve police party when we bad got them tc a pointwhcro the houses of Perala bogie, we halted , nd thoughtbeet to retire The withdrawal wae cffjctFd partly bybus and a position was taken up on the ro^d near thefactory The mob however advanced up tbo road againand had to bo driven back about tho same i-iace as

before from \\bich we retired after havirp done so.After a sh Tt tune the mob to which we statsoveralmessages through passers-by warning them tc disperse.again advanced up tho road The advaocirg mob onthe road had again to be driven back *\ There is no men-tion here of any stone*throwing with reference to thesetwo alleged advances by the mob,


36/95

The evidence of the witnesses for the labourUnion was to the effect that stones were being thrownon tb* crowd at the factory gate from inside tho factory.One Joseph, a labourer, speaks about this and one Mr.Williams, an ex: Councillor of the Chirala Municipalityalso speaks to this.

It id obvious that the story of stone throwing asgiven by the official witnesses is a gross exaggerationif it is not

whollyfalse. It is most

extraordinarythat if

there was stone throwing by a determined and aggre-ssive mob numbering some thousands pelting hugestone? at the rate of fifty to sixty per minute the policeand the officials should have been able to escape withoutany hurt. The medical certificates filed (whose genuine-ness iff challenged for the Labour Union) show only nmallabrasions and contusions. Dr. K. R. Chandra Ramasastryexamined as official witness says "Dy. Superintendent of

Police the Circle Inspector, the Sergeant, the S"b-Inspector and eighteen police constables were injured bystones. There were no wounds inflicted All the injurieswere abrasions and contusions*'. There is absolutely noreason suggested why any stone throwing at all wasstarted by the crowd against the police at the factorygates. Admittedly, the Joint Magistrate, the DeputySuperintendent of Police, the Company Manager and theCompany Director all came in into the factory without anymolestation or trouble which is most unlikely if therehad already been stone-throwing by the mob. TheDeputy Superintendent of Police in hi evidence veryclearly states "There was no stone-throwing or hostileact towards us (Police)". Later on. again, be says

" Notones were thrown at us". In the face of this very

clear evidence the story of stone- throwing at the policeat any rate in tho earlier stage* ia clearly unsustainable.The

suggestion apparently so far as the Dy. Superin-tendent of police's evidence is concerned is that therewas stone throwing at the factory or stone-throwing byone section of the crowd against the other, but not atthe police. This theory of hostility towards the factoryor conflict between two sections of the crowd has alreadybeen discussed and shown to be hollow.


37/95

27

Whether or not the version on behalf of theLabour Union that stones were really pelted from inside

the factory on to the crowd is sufficiently substantiated,there are certainly strong reasons to doubt the officialstory that there was hostile stone-throwing at the police,at any rate to such a degree as to necessitate the repeatedlathi charges and firings in supposed self-defence.

If thercr be any foundation for the story of stonethrowing against the police, what was the reason forthis hostility against the police and when did this hosti-lity commence and in what degree did it persevere atthe various successive stages The case as accepted inthe report is that there was no initial hostility againstthe police and this is corroborated by the Dy. Superin-tendent of Police If there was any stone throwing atall. is it a case of the police having made lathi chargesto protect themselves against stone throwing, or is it acase of the police having indulged in unnecessary exce-

ssive lathi charges continuously. beating up an unarmedmob tor a lone: distance of over two furlongs andgetting into hutting areas and beating persons in andaround, and thereby provoking some sections of thecrovsd into Mmie degree of stone-throwing.

These very important material aspects have noteven been adverted by tho Judge in his report. TheCircle Inspector in his evidence makes the very signifi-cant admission " They (the crowd) became irritated andthrew stones" ..... "The rioters were becoming irritatedat the lathi charges"

WITH REGARD TO "0".

AGGRESSIVE ADVANCES BY THEMOB ON THE POLICE.

The main plank in the official version is that everytime the crowd was beaten back, it advanced again onthe police immediately, the beating stopped and the policeretreated. This theory of a ^ee-saw movement betweenthe crowd and the police was started in the First Infor-mation Report itself as the substantial justification for


38/95

28

the firing. It was elaborated in the evidence of allofficials viz., the Joint Magistrate, the Dy. Superinten-dent of Police the Circle Inspector, the Sub-Inspectorand the Sergeant.

Mr. Boatfield, the company manager, who \\ itne-fisod the first lathi charge at 1-45 T. M speaks of thecrowd being driven Lark by the lathi charg


39/95

29

jparae papayya examined as an official witness. He .says"Six ponce constables were charging thfm (the crowd)back towards the railway lino with latbies. The mobthrew stonus at the police. The police fell back and themob attacked with stones ".

It ia certianly noteworthy that the versions spo*ken to by the officials about the crowd advancing on thepolice after every lathi charge is not corroborated byevidence of

anyof the other witnesses and

onlya

pettygangman could be found to speak to it. The evidenceof the witnesses extracted above clearly shows that atevery lathi charge the crowd was rushing pell-mell in alldirections and it is most improbable that such a crowdwould have been systematically advancing on the police,when the police retreated after each lathi charge. It isextremely difficult to believe that a crowd of 5000 to 6000persons which could at one lathi charge be driven awayas far as tbo Municipal limits, a distance of about twofurlongs, would have been so continuously aggressive-minded as to advance on the police after every lathicharge. As already noted the First Information Reportwhen mentioning that the crowd advanced towards thepolice twice after the first lathi charge by the reserve police,does not mention that there was any stone- throwingand if there was no stone throwing, it is most unlikelythat there was any aggression. It is part of the offi-cial case th.it one section of the crowd numbering orera thousand split up from the main group at the first lathicharge, ran away towards Stuartpuram side and wascoming hack again and that the same could he kept undercontrol by the Dy, Superintendent of Police \\lth a fewconstables, It is not suggested that the group df onethousand was uncontrollably aggresive There ia no

reason sugg* stod why the other section of the crowdwhich ran alo g the road to the Municipal limits shouldhave behaved otherwise. The First Information Reportdistinctly -tates that message^ were sent to the crowdat the toll gat( to disperse through

"passers-by

"which

clearly show*- that there was no menacing crowd on tfceroad and that men were freely passing along the road.


40/95

80

"D" OUT-FLANKING MOVEMENT,

It will be remembered that the firing was directednot against the mam section of the crowd which hadbeen driven up to the Municipal Limits, but agamst thacrowd which was on railway line more than two fur*longs away from tha factory. The official case is thatthey had to fire on this crowd because? they feltthat thts action of the crowd had separated itolf fromthe main sr^Mon with a viow to out-flank the policeand hem them io and that consequently to check thi? out-flanking movement and to prevent this section of thecrowd attacking the bungalows of the corapauv'e officersand in self-protection they had to open fire on biththe occasions This thoory of out-flankinp is a meretheory.

There is no evidence of any real out-flankingmovement *xc*pt th* aswtiona of the officers intariMtPd.

Mr. Boatimd has


41/95

81

nas already boen seen that there i? a definite conflict ofevidence as to whether the first firing took place near

the huts beyond the main railway line or sorartwhereabrwt tlu huts hot WOOD the road aud the branch line. Ifit 1*1 tho latter there may bo some scope for tbu^ suggest*ing of out-flanking if a portion of the crowd winch hadbe*'3 driven some furlongs away came to a fairly nearpoint again by a circuitous round. But if it is theformer, aa not probably it i, to imagine that a crowdmore than a furlong away from the police weiv likelyto

out-flank the policeis

wiper-imagination.

It has to ba noted in this connection that the crowd* n the railway which was apprehended to he making*D ut flan ting movement **as first charged bySergeant Reilly with four or five lathi constables. Serge-ant U-illy in his evidence s*ys "We drove the mob rightback beyond the huts I wont among the huts on the

l*f* t 'f tho "p.-iilJ w>th 4 r 5 r*"" **\* r nit there

who hid been throwing stones from the hute. Sawranks at rear of crowd ID front throwing and crowdreappearing on the railway line Thought would be cutoff and pohc* would bo hemmed in between two parties...

.. I now took the 4-5 men and went across to therailway lino The mob then occupied the whole areain front of the huts to the right of the railway line,"He says later on that he walked about 25 yards from

the road to the railway. If this is meant to convey anidea of the distance between the point at the road where*from he crossed to the railway and the point on therailway Hoe near about post 212/1 where the crowdappears to have been, it is obviously a gross under-state-men t.

It looks very probable that the Sergeant in thover-zealous discharge of his work (or callous disregardof the real necessities of the situation) cleared the mobfor a dfltanc* of two furlongs by continuous beatingsand lathi charges and then turned his attention to aportion of the crowd which had run away pH-raell to-ward* some huts oo the left of the road and then turnedhis attention to another portion of the crowd whichmust have similarly run away to the right side of


42/95

32

road to the huts beyond the train railway lire and pur-eued and attempted to beat away tho crowd tbcre in his

cailons thorough-going manner.

Whether the above conclusion ie correct or not, itla ohviout that in order to determine the truth of out-flanking any one must determine the distance betweenthe place where the police had retired after the lethicharges and the place where the first firing and secondfiring had taken place as the report decs not address itselfto thia

very material aspect of the case.

CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO THE

1ST FIBING & 2ND FIRING SEPARATELY.

It is now necessary to consider the circumstancesrelating to the first and second finngs separately

The first question to be determined in this connec-tion is the exact location uf each firing. This has alreadybten discussed and it has been shown that tbere i&definite conflict in the ofhcial evidence on this matterbut very probably both finngs took place near the hutson the right side of the ream Railway Line.

The actual evidence relating to the first firing i?-at follows : The First Information Report says :

' The mob on the railway line looked < xtremelythreatening and likely to out-flank us and attack us inthe rear. To prevent this I went with a party of policeoarryiD^ hthiea to clear ibj? mob back. Alter firsturging them to disperse or retire wo ran towards tL mard made an attempt to disperse them. Instead of di


43/95

33

Sergeant Reilly in his evidence pays that he" Saw

ranks at rear of crowd in front , thinning and crowd

reappearing on railway lines. Thought would be cut offand police would be hemmed in between the partiesI went among them wfth my lathi men, but could notdisperse them. I felt sure that if .the mob succeeded inbreaking past the police we would have been overwhel~med I was struck on my arm with a stone and all mymen were struck. The crowd were picking up stoneafrom the permanent way Hundreds of stones werefalling

11

1 cried out " Bringup

the rifles Bringsome assistance My men also cried in Telugu TheCircle Inspector followed one minute later

""After the

Circle Inspector came, he gave the order for firing." TheCircle Inspector in his evidence says: "Some of them(crowd) crossed the railway line and can^e east towardsthe bungalows and the factory. The Joint Magistrateordered ua to charge them. They were driven backtoward* the huts. They became irritated and threwstones. The men who went on the charge cried: "We aredying, wo are dying/' I ran to the railway with rny men.Ihe lathi party led by the Sergeant fell back behind me.The mob was advancing pelting stones Our chargeshad proved ineffective and all cur party had been struck.I also thought it likely that tb^ bungalow with womenand children would be attacked. The rioters were be-coming irritated at lathi charges. I also expected to besurrounded and hemmed in and destroyed unless thisadvance was checked and go I Raw no alternative but toopen fire. I callod loudly to Joint Magistrate. I gotno reply and could not see him. I thought I could nolonger wait and so ordered the Sergeant to open fire^....Thre# men were ordered to open fire one round each.The leader fell, got up and ran away. I did not see anyother man injured. Within a minute of my firing, theJoint Magistrate came from the huts. I bad no ume tocall for assistance before opening fire, As soon as thesecond firing was over, I explained to the Joint Magis-trate the circumstances under which 1 had fired withouthis orders'

1

pelted

The Joint Magistrate in bis evidence says: "Theystones and came on us. Gava tH^ /*i*~ /c *


44/95

84

lathi constables with Sergeant) a hand-to-hand fighting.Seeing the thing was precarious, I went to get

the

armed section but found they had retired already......I looked round to see whew the Armed section was and1feen I heard the volley from the place 1 left

.

He further on says : " 1 did not know the circamstoncesunder which the ordsr was given except that I hfeard

th fife. I did not tee any casualltfos as a resultof the

firing. I understand one man was hit, I did not knowat all that he died".

The Sub-Inspector in his evidence says : "Someof

the mob then crossed north of the line and back toward*the factory. After warnings the Sergeant

ani 4m-ncharged them. They were followed by the Joint Magistrate. They ware severely attacked by stone?

C ne.d

for help. The Joint Magistrate and I turned hackto

look for the armed men. Firing" "I saw the b^rgeaotbeat 1-2 men on the railway line '.

" The police were

charging the crowd and they were running way.There was a cry from the people that the flag

was shown

and that if the crowd did not disperse there would be

firing. Fiv minutes later there was firing Feo P'(:

said that the crowd was throwing stones. Idea all

dispersed

-I heard only one firing. I did not hear

that there

had bo-aany previous

firing I was there for about

twenty minutes. The people retreated past rue ant 1

joined th-jm."

It is not clear from this evidence whether this

refers to the first or second firing. It may refer to the,

first because he speaks to having seen the chargingot

the crowd by the police (which precededthe first firing.

There is no evidence that the second firing was preceded

by a further lathi charge).

Railway Gangman Papayya examined atofficial

witness says:- Six police constables were charging

tbero

back towards the railway line with lathies Themob

threw-stones at the police. The police fell backand the

mob attacked with stones. The police shouted loudly


45/95

85

"Bring the gups9

'. Sight police constable! came towardsthe railway line wifll guns The mob did notretreat but threw stones. The Police then fired".

The above statement of the evidence makes onething clear namely, that the police sergeant with 4 to 5lathi constables with or without the Joint Magistratewent up to the crowd that was on the tailway line andcharged them. The further developements at that stagewere the direct results of this lathi charge. Was therea sufficient justification for the

police running upto this

crowd and delivering lathi charges as against a groupof persons that may have gathered there? It has alreadybeen noted that the evidence makes it highly probablethat the distance between the police party on tbe road.ind the mob on the railway line was fairly large. Iti^ not suggested that at this particular point of timethe police had to rush up and deliver lathi charge tothe crowd because of any pelting of stones. The pre-vious pelting of stones, if any, had at any rate temporarilyceased by that time. The advances by the crowd alongthe road had also ceased All that is said is that a portionof the crowd reappeared on the railway line, the policeand the officials thought that the crowd was making anout- flanking movement, which had to be cheked. Ithas been already shown that there was no real basis forthis suggestion of out-flanking. It is impossible to saythat there is even a justifiable

groundfor

apprehensionof out-flanking unless three matters are clearly esta-blished :

1 . That the distance of the mob from the placewhere the police was stationed and the direction in whichthe mob was moving was such as to have reiulted in out-flanking within the next few minutes.

2. That the mob at that particular time was solarge in numbers that the police would have been helplessas against such an out-flanking.

3. That the preceding attitude of the mob was sodetermined and aggressive that nothing but aggressive-ness could have been anticipated from the position of the


46/95

86

crowd. As to the numerical strength of the mob on therail road at the point of time, the evidence is again con-

ficting. The Joint Magistrate says that the mob on therail road was from 4 to 5 thousand; Sergeant Reillysays that the crowd on the railway line was larger thanthe crowd on the road. The Circle Inspector says thatthere was a mob of about 2000 in front. While thusthree official witnesses give very large estimates, eachdifferent from the other, the engine driver T. F DeSelverexamined as an official witness says that the mob on therailway road was within " 300 to 400 or more ". Therailway gangman Papayya who on all details that hespeaks to generally falls inline with the evidence of th*police officials, says the mob present on both sides ofthe lines is 3000 to 4000. It is not easy to behve thatthe mob on the railway line would 'have numbered manytbcusacds as the official witnesses eay. A portion of thecrowd had been dispersed towards the Stuartpuram sideby the first lathi charge. A portion of the crowd hadrun into the huts lyiog to the left of the road Themajor portion of the crowd had been driven away bybeating along the road towards the Municipal limns.The crowd that had gathered on the railway line wa**therefore only a section that had dispersed and runaway towards the huts by the side of th


47/95

37

and ran pell-mell. They had been cleared ~*uptoradistance of 2 furlongs more along the road and at * anyrate during the later stages of the lathi charge* in theprocess of this clearing, there was no stone-throwing.The road was clear enough for passers-by and no police-man had received any serious injury and ther* w*s noattempt or demonstration of hostility against the com-pany's officials. In these circumstances, it is not rea-sonable to assume that there was any real ground forapprehension that the appearance of a portion of thecrowd on the

railwayline really amounted to an at tern t

at out-flanking which required to be checked.

In this connection, it would also be material toconsider what time had elapsed between the drivingaway of the crowd to the toll-gate limits and the appea-rance of a section of the crowd on the railway line*Assuming that the crowd which was at the factorygates, and bad been driven up along the road to the toll-

gate limits, was found to be determined aod aggressiveand bad indulged in stone-throwing and repeatedlyadvancing on the police aud other aggressive acts, stillit would not follow that the appearance of a crowd some-time later on the railway line must give rise to a rea-sonable apprehension that the crowd wil] create furthertrouble and had therefore to be dispersed. Accordingto the Joint Magistrate "He took an hour to drive backthe people" It is not clear what portion of this hourwas occupied in the lathi charges to drive the crowd fromthe factory to the toll-gate and what interval there waaafter that and before firing. But obviously these variousstages did not follow in such quick succession as to makeit inevitable to assume that they all constituted severaland successive phases of a single effort of a determinedand homogeneous mob. The Enquiry Officer has notappreciated that the interval is a matter of considerable

importence to judge whether the apprehension wasreasonable. Taking all the above circumstances it isfairly clear that a mob of a few hundreds on the rail-way lin* at a considerable distance from the place wherethe police were stationed on the road, after clearing theroad to a distance of 2 furlongs was unnessarily pursuedand lathi-charged and beaten and this as the Circle


48/95

Inspector admits irritated the mob and probably startedthe further trouble. Whether there was sufficient justi-fication for the firing after the trouble was provoked bythe police is somewhat difficult to say. But as alreadystated, even this must depend to a very large extentupon the number of the crowd, its position and situationand its beicg controllable by a large lathi force.

The roost outstanding feature, however, of thiscase is the fact that the firing was ordered by the CircleInspector without the knowledge of the Joint Magisttrate. The Joint Magistrate was admittedly very nearat hand. He had returned " within a minute" of thefiring. He had only gone to a place at which the cry ofthe Sergeant for help was heard and fetched the CircleInspector. The Circle Inspector says that he cried outfor the Joint Magistrate, but did not get a response. Itis impossible to believe this. If the cry of the Sergeantcould be heard on the road and could fetch the CircleInspector of police ia a minute, there is no reason whythe cry of the Circle Inspector from the same spotcould not be heard by the Joint Magistrate who was onthe road and why the cry did not fetch the Joint Magis-trate immediately. Even though the Joint Magistratehad actually turned up in a minute and nothing veryserious could have happened if the Circle inspectorwaited for that minute, the Circle Inspector says that heexplained to the Joint Magistrate the circumstancesunder which he was

obligedto fire immediately after

the first firing was over. But the Joint Magistrate saysthat he was not at all aware of the circumstances.This conflicting evidence makes it doubtful whether thetruth had^Jbaoj^told and involves this portion of thecase ^ w

the circumstances relating toId to a large extent depend

the first firing and broughtIs it likely that the mobming an aggressive attitudeand one person fell down

Some portion at least ofave run away and whether the


49/95

portion of it that may have remained was capable ofbeing dealt with by a reinforcement of lathi police is a

matter that hat not been appreciated or adverted to inthe report. On the evidence of the official witnesses asgiven, it looks as though th* Joint Magistrate, to saythe least, bad become panicky and had run up to fetchthe rifle and gave a farther order for firing under theinfluence of the panicky impulse without fully takinginto his mind the fact of the first firing done withouthis knowledge, or the change in situation that may havebeen brought about by such first firing* And this pro-bability accounts for his saying that he was not awareof the circumstance* relating to the first firing andalso for the more curious admission that he was notaware apparently until the date of enquiry that theperson who was wounded by the first firing had sub-sequently died. f

At this stage, one curious portion of the evidence

requirescareful notice. The commission

agent, Rangayya,examined on the official side, states that he was at adistance from the firing spot for about 20 minutes ; thathe heard only one firing, that he saw a lathi chargepreceding that firing, that as a result of the firing hesaw the crowd had " all dispersed

" and that he did nothear that there was any previous firing. This evidencemakes it clearly certain that he very probably saw onlythe first firing which was preceded by a lathi chargeand that as a result of that firing, all Had dispersed.Where then was any necessity for a second firing ? Hisevidence also makes it very doubtful whether therehad been a second firing at all. He says he was there for20 minutes and saw one firing arid had not heard thatthere was a previous firing. If the two firings followedin quick succession as the official evidence purports tomake out, it is impossible to imagine that this witness

did not hear, ( if he did not see), the two firings. The onlyother possibility would be that the two firings wereseparated by a very considerable interval of time. Andif this be the truth, the truth has been suppressed. Andthe lapse of time would make a very considerable diffe-rence in justifying the circumstances. This witness'sevidence therefore taken from any point of view cute


50/95

40

right across the official version and throws very

doubtsonthe truth of it. It is to be remembered that

this witnew wan examined on the official aide and there-is obviously BO reason to reject the evidence and acceptthe very interesting evidence of the official

witnesses

themselves.

THE NATURE OF THE WOUNDS RECEIVED ATTHE FIRINGS AND CONCLUSION THERE FROM

Thfl nature of the wounds received by the personsshot offers very material and substantial evidence

as

to the circumstances relating to the two firings. Six

shots in all were fired ; four persons had received gun-shot wound* , of whom 3 died, 2 died on the spot andone died in the hospital a few days later. The person

living received wound on his wrist, the person who diedin the hospital bad his abdomen pierced through by

the shot. Of the 2 personswho died on the spot, one

received a wound through the head, another received a

wound through his shoulder-blade. The report andthe

evidence disclosed a controversy whether any or all ot

the wounds were received from the front or irom the

back The report says" the man who was shot through

his wrist was no doubt shot from the front". It is not

clear why this should be so assumed. There is nothingin the nature of the wrist wound to enable one to say

that the shot must have been from the front. It mightequally have been the result of a shot

from the back.

All that can probably be said is thatit 13- inconclusive.

Next with reference to the shot through the

abdomen the report says "admittedly another was jjhotin the abdomen, the shot coming through his back

. This

again is clearly wrong. The Medicalofficer examined

with reference to this wound namelyDr. A. J John ot

Guntur says that he held a post-mortemof this person:

-He had wound in front and behind, the wound in theback might have been the exit wound which

was large

enough and somewhat ragged. But I cannotbe sure

what it was". In the face of this evidence it is a clear

misunderstanding of the evidence to saythat the shot


51/95

was "admittedly", IB the front corning through thef bsfek-The utmost again that can be aaid of this also is thatit is inconclusive* Next as to the shoulder-blade wound,the report says

" one of the men was shot below, one. ofthe shoulder-blades and the bullet came out through theopposite flank. Obviously, that man was facing at. rightangles to the line of firing". Even so this appears to bea shot against a person who was turning away froma firing rather than turning towards the firing line,and is suggestive more of a back-shot than of a front-side shot. The main

controversycentres round the

wound of the person who had received a shot throughhis head. The report Bays "according to the post-mortem certificate this man bad a wound in front ofhis head and no exit wound*'. The inquest report how-ever states that there was an injury behind on the headof the deceased caused by gun-shot. The Enquiry Officerbrushes this aside by saying that this may not havebeen anything more than a clot of blood. None of thePaocbayatdars have been called to explain why thatentry wa* made in the inquest report if it was not correctand whether there was any scope of such a serious mis-take It is imposible to see how the Enquiry Officercame to brush aside the entry in the inquest report ona gratuitous assumption that the Phanrhayatdars atthe inquest may have made a mistake.

If he found a conflict betwen thepost-mortem

cer-tificate of the doctor and the remark in ihe inquestreport, the least that could have been done was to recallthe doctor and to get bis explanation, and that has notbeen done If there was a wound both in the front ofthe head and in the back of the head, this wound againcannot be assumed to be a result of the Iront shot.Doctor Chel apathy Rao of Guntur has given evidencethat the front wound was so large that it was rot likelyto have been an entry-wound but that it mwt have beenan exit wound. Dr. Chelapathy Rao explains that afast moving bullet behaves as a sharp weapon and aslow moving bullet as a blunt weapon and that accordin-gly the exit wound of a bullet which would be movingslower will be larger than the entry wour^d. TheEnquiry Officer, while accepting generally that the exit


52/95

42

wouM be larger than the entry-wound attempts to"make out that the largeness of the wound in front of thehead of this particular deceased must have been due to alowvelocity with which it struck the head and that it coo-sequently also remained imbedded in the brain. In view ofthe conflict between the post-mortem certificate and theinquest report, this theory of the bullet remaining im-bedded in th* brain should not have been accepted withoutfurther scrutiny, apart from thip, if the bullet impingedon the head at such a slow velocity in order to be ableto get out of the brain, the bullet must have been shotat* from a fairly considerable distance and A furtherinvestigation of the distance at which it should havebaen shot in order to remain imbedded in the brain wouldprobably show that shots have been fired at a fairly dis-tant crowd, thus falsifying most of the details in conn-ction with the 2nd firing which has been spoken to bythe witnesses.

It is to be remembered that according to theevidencfl these shots at the second firing struck twopersons who were in front of the crowd and thereforethe depth of the crowd could not account for any portionof the shooting range between the person who shotand the person who received the wound. If the inquestreport is tobe accepted and there was a back side woundand if the front wound is a large one and more likely tobe the exit wound, then it would follow that this shothas certainly been received from the back. In additiontothi?, the widow of the person who died in the firstfiring of the abdominal wound has given evidence thather husband had just then come from home to take heraway from the mob and that while they were both retur-ning he received the wound in the back. If this evidenceis to be accepted, this will also be an instance of shotin the back. Thus there is reason to think that the three

wounds of the persons who died were the results of shotsfrom the back and this is suggestive of the inferencethat the firmer was resorted to as against a retreatingcrowd. The Government in their communique accept-ing the report gay that it is immaterial whether the shotsare from the front or from the back, because in a riotousmob some persons might be retreating and some persons


53/95

anight be fighting and it may be a matter of mere coin-cidence that the actual shot may have happened toaffect the retreating persons. But it is certainly remar-kable that all the three wounds of the persons who diedshould be the result of back side shots. Such a coinci-dence is not likely to have been the result of merechance But apart from this, the Government's commu-nique fails to take note of the very definite evidence thathas been given.

On that evidence, there is no room for the suggestionthat the two persons that received shots in the 2nd firingmay have been persons who were retreating from out ofa riotous crowd most of which was fighting. The JointMagistrate in his evidence very definitely states thatthe two people who fell down dead were " slightly inadvance of the mob" and "in front of the mob andalso says that

"They were rushing forward urging them


54/95

'44

The Evidence and the probabilities have been S3-far discussed under the various headings and the dis-cussion has bean almost entirely confined to the evidenceon the official side and on the side of the company, andis based upon transcript of the said evidence supplied bythe Enquiry Offiicer to the President of the Labour Union.and no attempt has bten made to put forth the point ofview of the Congress Enquiry Committee because forreasons that will appear later full evidence was not forth-coming.

The trouble in the factory started on the 8 th. Fromthe 8th to the 13 th. the situation was entirely peaceful. Inthe forenoon of the 1 4th there is some evidence that therewas picketing but there is no sufficient evidence to assumethat the picketing was not peaceful. There was a meetingof the labourers in which they were advised not to gonear the factory and the Joint Magistrate who badwatched the situation in the morning was satisfied thatthere was no reason to apprehend any trouble. Arumour spread by the Head Clerk of the company gotcirculated that a compromise has been arrived at andthat the labourers may come back to work Thisattracts some of the workers to the factory gate**. Itis said that at the factory gate, two hostile groupsgathered, one intent on going in and the other intenton preventing the same but the evidence bearing on thisis not believable

andthe

probabilitiesar

againstit

There is said to have been some picketing, stone-throw-ing and the like; the actual evidence, however, that suchhostile demonstrations, if any. were of a minor charac-ter and there is no substantial evidence of any actualconflict between two big and equally numerous groupswhich required the intervention of the police by latm.

The crowd is said to be armed with sticks, chisels

knives and other missiles, but the evidence relating tothis is entirely unsubstantiated. There is said to have beencontinuous stone-throwing by the mob at the police atvarious stages, but the evidence in this respect has

certainly been very greatly exaggerated a* is clearfrom the ab?ence of any serious injuries en the police.It is very doubtful if there was any stone-throwing


55/95

45

against the police at the factory gates since admittedlythere was no hostility towards the police or the companyofficers in the beginning. But whether or not therewas stone-throwing at the factory gates and whether ornot such stone-throwing was against the police or other*wise, it is reasonably certain that by continuous lathicharges the police had completely driven away thecrowd to a distance of more than two furlongs from thefactory gates, it is also reasonably clear that when thecrowd was being driven by lathi charges from the factory

gates up to the Municipal limits there was no stone-throw-ing emce the First Information Report does not mentionthe story of a see-saw movement the police and the crowdall along the road and the story that the crowd was sodetermined a* to retreat further and further small dis-tances at every lathi charge is a clear development notto be found in the First Information Report is whollyunbelievable. The crowd was easily controllable and hadrun pell-mell in the various directions at the succesivelathi charges. No reason is ehown when and why thecrowd became hostile to the police and it is a reasonableinference to make that it was continuous and excessivelathi charges of the police over a range ot two furlongsthat, if at all, provoked the irritation of the mob. T

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rajendra-kumar-devarapalli
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

chiralashooting035529mbp

Documents