BHANWAR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against an order dated 8.10.1963, passed by Sri G.P. Misra, Magistrate first class, Agra, rejecting the applicants contention that the trial against them is barred Under Section 403 Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present application might be briefly stated as follows. According to the prosecution case Bhanwar Singh and Dhuria had beaten Bipti with lathis on 17.11.1961, in a field somewhere outside the abadi of the village. After this beating hid taken place, it was alleged that Bipti went towards the abadi of the village and when he reached the well of Pitam, Fauran Singh, Bucha Ram and Soran came there and asked Bhanwar Singh and Dhuria as to why they had caused injuries to Bipti. In the meantime six other persons, namely, Jiwan, Jangi, Hira, Ganga Ram, Shankar and Ratna had joined Bhanwar Singh and Dhuria, and all the eight of them voluntarily caused hurt to Fauran Singh, Bucha Ram and Bipti. A case Under Sections 147/323 IPC was started against all the eight accused persons. The Magistrate made it clear that he was not charging the accused persons for causing injuries to Bipti, at a different place, by only two of the eight accused persons, because it was a different occurrence and the joint trial might not be permissible under law. The eight accused persons were, therefore, tried only for causing injuries to Bucha Ram and others. All of them were acquitted.

(3.) FROM the facts stated above it is clear that the two occurrence which took place on 17.11.1961, were quite different. The places of occurrence were also different. In the first occurrence only Bipti had been beaten and the accused persons were Bhanwar Singh and Dhuria only, while in the second occurrence, which took place at another place, though after a short interval, persons other than Bipti were also beaten and the accused persons were eight in number. The trial which ended in the acquittal of all the eight accused persons was in respect of the second offence only. The Magistrate, who tried that case, had made it clear that he was not charging the accused persons for having caused simple and grievous hurt to Bipti.