BEHARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by nine men against their conviction and sentences under Sections 147, 148, 325 and 326 read with Section 149, I. P. C.

(2.) On 29-4-1951 at about 5-30 p.m. when Dharmi and Makundi were returning home from a bazar, they were surrounded by the applicants, who were waiting for them, and struck with lathis and spears. Dharmi received 14 injuries and Makundi, 15. Three of Makundi's injuries were caused with sharp-edged and sharp-pointed weapons and the rest were caused with blunt weapons. Among the rest was a contused wound in which there was a fracture of both the bones of the rest forearm. Dharmi also had injuries caused with sharp-edged and blunt weapons; three of his injuries were grievous, one of them was caused with a sharp-edged weapon. There is ample evidence to prove these facts. The courts below did not act improperly or illegally in accenting it and rejecting the defence. The applicants were rightly convicted under Sections 147 or 148, 325 and 326 read with Section 149, I. P. C. There is no truth in the complaint of the applicants' counsel that the appellate court ignored the evidence of the defence witnesses who had given evidence regarding enmity. Five defence witnesses were examined, two of whom gave evidence about the occurrence. The appellate court discussed their evidence when dealing; with the prosecution evidence about the occurrence. It did not mean to say that no other defence witnesses were examined. It did not. refer to the defence witnesses whose evidence was only circumstantial probably because the applicants' counsel did not rely upon that evidence before it. It must have considered and rejected it as useless, though without referring to it in the judgment. There was, therefore, no flaw in the hearing of the appeal.

(3.) Next it was argued that separate sentences under the various sections are illegal. The sentences imposed on each of the applicants are as follows: (1) under Sections 147 and 148-I. P. C., rigorous imprisonment for one year or 1 1/2 years and a fine; (2) under Section 325 read with Section 149, rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine; and (3) under Section 326 read with Section 149, rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine. Neither the Magistrate nor the appellate court has mentioned whether the sentences would be concurrent or consecutive. Therefore, they will be consecutive. The contention of the applicants is that separate sentences under Sections 325 and 326 read with Section 149 cannot be inflicted in addition to the sentence under Section 147.