HARI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hari Ram appellant was tried separately for two distinct offences under Section 436, Penal Code, for setting fire to the houses of Niroti and Mawasi on 13-1-1950, at about 4 A.M. in village Lakhanpur, police station Hari Parbat, district Agra. He was sentenced for these offences by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Agra to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, to one year's further rigorous imprisonment. The sentences of imprisonment in both the cases were made concurrent.

(2.) Before dealing with these two appeals, I would like to point out that the observation of the learned Sessions Judge that the two offences, which appeared to have been committed during the same course of transaction according to the prosecution ease, could not be tried together is not correct. According to Section 234, Criminal P. C., when a person was accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences he could be charged with and tried at one trial for any number of such offences not exceeding three in number. There can be no doubt that, in this case, the two offences of arson were committed shortly one after the other and, in view of the above provision, both of them could be tried at one trial. Section 235, Criminal P. C. provides: "235(1) -- If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for every such offence." Even, according to this provision, the appellant could have been tried for bath the offences at one trial and two separate trials were not necessary.

(3.) As the evidence in both these cases is common, I propose to decide both the appeals together by one judgment.