NAWAB SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern Criminal Revision Nos. 526 and 663 of 1971 as they arise out of the same incident.

(2.) NAWAB Singh, Bhola Singh, Ram Charan, Rajendra, Kishan Lai, Smt. Siriya and Smt. Ram Sri have preferred these applications in revision against the judgment and order, dt. 23 -3 -1971, of Sri A.P. Agarwal, Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra, dismissing the appeal and maintaining the conviction of the Applicants Under Sections 147 and 332 read with Section 149 IPC and sentences of three months' R.I. Under Section 147 and three months' R.I. Under Section 332 read with Section 149 IPC awarded to the other Applicants than Smt. Siriya and Smt. Ram Sri who were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ - each under both the counts and Ram Charan and Rajendra were released on probation of good conduct Under Section 4 of the First Offender's Probation Act by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) ON appeal being preferred by the Applicants, it was dismissed and the learned Sessions Judge having believed the prosecution witnesses and having discarded the defence version, arrived at the findings that Sri J.L. Chawla along with some constables and public witnesses had gone to the village of the accused persons on 3 -4 -1966, that Sri J.L. Chawla had attached two bullocks of Bhagwan Singh, that the accused then snatched the bullocks and caused Hansiya injuries to Sri J. L. Chawla and also attacked the police party with lathis and Hansiyas, that the issue of warrant of arrest Ex. Ka 5, warrant of attachment Ex. Ka 6 and warrant of proclamation Under Section 87/88 Code of Criminal Procedure was irregular because neither on the warrant of arrest nor on the warrant of attachment, it was mentioned that the warrants could be executed by Sri Chawla or any member of that police station and that the police party having acted in good faith under colour of its office and having attached only two bullocks, the accused had no right of private defence in inflicting injuries on the police party. He accordingly upheld the conviction and sentences awarded by the learned Magistrate.