MUNNI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUNNILAL Appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable Under Section 224 IPC and sentenced to one year's R.I. He was also found guilty of offences punishable Under Sections 147 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to six month's R.I. for each offence under these provisions. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. He was acquitted of the charge for an offence punishable Under Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, Munnilal was wanted at police station Manda, in the district of Allahabad, in connection with a dacoity in 1961. Proceedings Under Sections 87/88 Code of Criminal Procedure had been taken against him as he was absconding. As Munnilal was a resident of village Bhonda, which lay within the limits of police station Karchana, the papers connected with the proceedings Under Sections 87/88 Code of Criminal Procedure had been sent to police station Karchana where Sarju Singh, PW 3, was the Second Officer. The entries made in the General Diary (Ex -Ka 4) of police station Karchana in this connection were known to and proved by the Second Officer. Another entry in the General Diary (Ex. Ka 5) showed that a warrant of attachment had been executed on 5 -5 -1961 by the Station Officer Prem Narain Misra, of police station Karchana, against the property of Munnilal. On 16 -12 -1961, Second Officer Sarju Singh, in the company of constable Jalil Beg, PW 2, was investigating a case Under Section 457 IPC at village Khain, one Bankeylal PW 1, informed him that Munnilal was seen in village Bhonda so that he could be arrested. Apparently, persons like Bankeylal, PW 1, who were in touch with the police, also knew that Munnilal was wanted by the police. Moreover, when proceedings had been taken Under Sections 87/88 Code of Criminal Procedure it must be a matter of common knowledge in the village that Munnilal, wanted by the police, was evading arrest. Sarju Singh, PW 3, on having received information about the Appellant, proceeded to village Bhonda. He did not know Munnilal from before. But, as Bankeylal, who knew Munnilal from before, told him at village Bhonda that Munnilal was seen proceeding in their direction they hid behind a wall. They came out and arrested Munnilal as he was passing near the wall. Munnilal raised an alarm. A number of villagers came to his help with lathis. One of them, Vishwanath, had a country made pistol. The Second Officer told the villagers that Munnilal had been lawfully taken into custody as he was wanted for an offence Under Section 395 IPC and there was a warrant for his arrest. He informed them that he could not, therefore, be released. But the friends of Munnilal beat up the police Officers and Bankeylal with lathis. The police party also used lathis in self defence. Jalil Beg had given a lathi blow to Vishwanath and had deprived him of his pistol. But, the small police party was overwhelmed. Munnilal was released from lawful custody. While running away, Sarju Singh fired his pistol in the air to frighten away the villagers. Munnilal, who had observed that the ammunition of the police officer was exhausted, then instigated his rescuers to chase and beat the police party which was again beaten. Each of the three persons in the police party escaped after sustaining some injuries. Second Officer Sarju Singh sustained as many as 16 simple injuries. Constable Jalil Beg had 10 simple injuries. Bankey Lal had 4 simple injuries. Some injuries were also inflicted on the heads of the police Officers. A first information report was lodged at police station Karchana at 9 -15 p.m. on 16 -12 -1961, at a distance of 7 miles from the place of occurrence, giving out the names of eight accused persons. Some of the details given above are not mentioned in the FIR. But, Sarju Singh, who had lodged the, fairly detailed first information report, was not given any opportunity to explain the omissions.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant relied strongly upon a Division Bench decision of this Court, in State v. Ram Chandra, AIR 1955 Alld 438. There, it was held that, if the arrest of an accused person is illegal for non -compliance of the provisions of Section 56 Code of Criminal Procedure, inasmuch as no order in writing for the arrest of the accused was given by the Superior Officer, the provisions of Section 54(1) Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be called in aid if, in fact, the officer making the arrest did not himself purport to act Under Section 54(1) Code of Criminal Procedure and did not himself possess any information which enabled him to act independently. Reliance was also placed on King v. Sridhar, AIR 1941 Ran 180 where it was held that a police Officer, who is merely purporting to carry out the order of his superior officers given to him orally, could not lawfully arrest, within the, meaning of Section 225 IPC, because Section 56 Code of Criminal Procedure made it imperative for the superior officer to give the order for arrest in writing to the subordinate officer.