MAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed against the conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Shri P.K. Bahrl) of only the two petitioners, out of six persons who were charged and convicted by the trial court, under sections 452/149, 323/149 and 147/149 Indian Penal Code ., maintaining the sentences of imprisonment for three months on each count, to run concurrently, in the following circumstances.

(2.) . There happened to be rivalry amont two unions of hotal employees. It is alleged that on 4-12-1972 when Kishori Lal (P.W. 3) was agoing to his house at about 11.45 p.m. he met Man Singh (Petitioner No. 1) near the Green Hotel and a altercation took place between them. It is stated that they accused each other of embezzling union funds. Apprehending some danger, during the heated arguments, Kishori Lal left and came towards Taj Mahal hotel and was climbing up the stairs when Man Singh (petitioner) and Daulat Ram (acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge) came there and caught hold of Kishori Lal and beat him up. Meanwhile the Manager of the hotel Gopal Dutt (P.W. 6) and the Accountant Manmohan (P.W. 1) came upstairs and tried to intervene. Man Singh threw Kishori Lal on the ground and beat him up with a wooden stick (Phatti) which was proba- bly picked up at the scene. It was further stated that 10 to 12 persons were led by Man Singh when he came to the hotel chasing Kishori Lal and that others also belaboured him with fists and slaps. The injuries thus caused to Public Witness . 3 do not appear to have been anything but simple.

(3.) . A telephonic message was sent to the Police who arrived at the spot. The assailants went away. The statement (Ex, Public Witness . 6/A) of Gopal Dutt was recorded by the Police on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. was registered. Though the F.I.R. mentioned the names of only two petitioners as having beaten Kishori Lal the names of 10 to 15 others said to have accompanied them were not mentioned. In his evidence Gopal Dutt referred to 10 to 15 per- sons accerpanying the two petitioners and he also idnctified all the six accused. The learned trial Magistrate convicted all the six persons, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly gave the benefit of doubt to the four accused, other than the two petitioners, on the ground that there had been reference in the F.I.R. only to the petitioners by their names. Nonetheless the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the two petitioners. Invoking section 149, in respect of the three substantive offences in respect of section 141, 452 and 323 I.P.C. and confirmed the convictions imposed on the two petitioners by the learned trial Magistrate, as already noticed.