Abmbika Singh vs Emperor

Ross, J.—The five appellants have been convicted u/s 147 of the Indian Penal Code on a charge of rioting with the common object of assulting one Balbhadra Singh. Three of them, Ragho Singh, Harihar Singh, and Mutru Singh, have also been convicted u/s 323 in respect of hurt caused to certain persons. The sentences u/s 147 are two years rigorous imprisonment each, and those u/s 323 are three months'' rigorous imprisonment each, the latter sentences running consecutively to the former.

The learned Counsel fox the appellants does not contest the convictions u/s 325, but argues that on the findings of the learned Sessions Judge there ought not to have been any conviction u/s 147.

The case for the prosecution was that the complainant''s party are cultivators of a certain holding and the accused''s party represent ijaradars. The complainant''s party had applied for commutation of rent and this is said to have enraged the accused. On the evening of the 12th of June last about 50 or 60 persons came to the house of Balbhadra and an dtercatiou took place as a result of which Balbhadra was struck on the head a severe blow which caused his death. Certain other parsons received slight injuries.

The finding of the learned Sessions Judge does not support the prosecution as regards the occasion of the assault. He finds that Khpal Singh, one of the accused, who is an old man of 65, had gone to invite Balbhadra to dinner on some social occasion. There had been a question of outcasting and taking back into caste on which Balbhadra differed from Kirpal''s view. Bilbhadra, therefore, refused the invitation whereupon, there was an altercation which led to Balbhadra''s attacking Kirpal Singh and inflicting two injuries upon him with a stick. Kirpal cried out for help and a tumult of people came, and Balbhadra received a fatal injury.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that on these facts there was no common object to assault Balbhadra; that the object of the accused was to rescue Kirpal Singh; and that if any of them in the course of effecting that object inflicted grievious injuries he was answerable for the injuries he caused, but the assembly did not become thereby an unlawful assembly. In my opinion this contention is sound. This was not a riot. The accused and others ran to rescue Kirpal Singh and it is impossible to say that if they had not come on healing Kirpal''s cries, be would not have been further assaulted. Excessive force was used by some persons in the course of this transaction and for that these persons have been made answerable. It has not been ascertained who caused the injury to Balbhadra, the prosecution having failed to prove its allegation on this point; but the fact that Balbhadra was fatally hurt by some unascertained person is no reason for convicting all the members of the assembly of rioting.

I would, therefore, uphold the convictions and sentences of the three persons, Harihar Singh, Ragho Singh, and Mutru Singh u/s 323 and would set aside all the convictions of rioting and the sentences passed against 111 the appellants u/s 147. The appellants Ambika Singh and Jagnarain Singh will be released at once.

Jwala Prasad, J.

I agree.