RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Raghbir Singh alias Raghu, a youngman of 25 years of age, had appealed to this Court against this conviction under Section 323, Penal Code, for voluntarily causing hurt to Prem Singh, under Section 323/34, Penal Code, for voluntarily causing hurt to Uttam Chand and under Section 426/34, I. P.C. for committing mischief, and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months, two months and one month respectively, all sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) THE story as unfolded by the prosecution witnesses, and which has not been challenged on the merits before me on appeal, betraying as it does, recklessly antisocial behaviour on the part on the appellant, is that on 29.11.1963 at about 1 P. M., in bazaar Nabi Karim, Pahar Ganj, Delhi, the appellant along with his companion Ram Singh indulged in a drunken brawl and both of them went about in the bazaar throwing soda water bottles and stones indiscriminately in all directions. The first victim of their rowdyism was Uttam Chand, A Halwai at Nabi Karim who was innocently and peacefully busy cleaning his karahi in his shop. Uttam Chand was hit on the back of his head by a stone thrown in his shop either by Raghbir Singh or by his companion Ram Singh. Another shopkeeper Munshi Ram, a tailor, who was working in Nabi Karim, suffered at the hands of the aggressive anti -social behaviour of the appellant and his companion. Some soda -water bottles thrown by the accused fell in his shop and one stone missile hit the handle of his sewing machine, thereby damaging it. The accused and his companion then picked up some soda -water bottles from the shop of Prem Singh, who had given no offence to these persons, and on whose resistance, he was caught hold of by Ram Singh. The appellant removed a boiling kettle from the oven in Prem Singh's shop and poured boiling water on Prem Singh's back. Still another innocent citizen Jiwan Dass, whom Ram Singh met in the street, was felled on the ground by him.

(3.) IT was represented to me by the learned counsel for the appellant that his client had served out only a couple of days because he was convicted on 11.7.1967 and was ordered by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 14.7.1967 to be released on bail, after furnishing a bail bond with one surety in the amount of Rs. 2000/ -. The counsel assumed that his client must have been released on bail. From the office noting, however, I find that till 16.9.1967, the appellant had not been released on bail, with the result that the sentence being short, it was considered desirable to fix this appeal for hearing at an early date. I am not sure if the accused is now on bail or in custody. But if he has already been released on bail, he must surrender to his bail bond to serve out the remaining sentence.