BISHAMBHER Vs. ROOMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order of acquittal. It has been filed after a similar application to the Sessions Judge of Meerut has been rejected. Such an application can be entertained only in exceptional cases; and it was admitted having regard to the special circumstances of the case, because, at the time of its presentation, it was thought that, on the facts found, a question of law of general importance to the community arose in the case. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the record, I find that the only question which arises for consideration in this revision is whether the accused persons were entitled to and were rightly allowed the benefits of the exceptions mentioned in Sections 81, 87 and 88, Penal Code.

(2.) Rumal Singh, Fateh Singh and Balwant Singh, Khacheru, Mansukh and Nathu were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with Section 114, Penal Code. They were tried by the Bench Magistrates of Meerut Cantonment and were found guilty of the offences with which they were charged. Accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced. They preferred an appeal, which was heard by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Meerut. The appeal was allowed and the conviction of and the sentence imposed upon each of them were set aside; and they were acquitted. Bishambhar Sahai, the complainant, filed a revision against the order of acquittal in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Meerut. The revision, which came up for hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut, was rejected.

(3.) The facts found by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge are these. The complainant, Bishambhar, had molested a Chamar girl, named Nathia. Khacheru, Mansukh and Nathu, who were among the accused persons, are related to Pooran, the father of the girl. On account of the indecent assault on the girl, the Chamars were very much agitated; and, having armed themselves with lathis, about 200 Chamars had collected near the house of one Ghasita Chamar. They were determined to punish the complainant, and had caught hold of him. Rumal Singh, Fateh Singh and Balwant Singh had intervened and tried to bring about a settlement. They along with other accused, who were the relations of the girl, had, in good faith, collected a Panchayat; and with a view to avoid other harm to the complainant and with his consent, the Panchayat had decided, in the interest of and for the benefit of the complainant, to blacken his face and to give him shoe-beating. In pursuance of the decision of the Panchayat the complainant's face was blackened and he was given a shoe-beating.