PUTTU LAL Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, Puttu Lai and His brother, Lain Earn, residents of village Dhai, P. 8. Kalan, were committed to session, charged under Sections 304, read with Section 34, Penal Code. Before the commencement of the trial in the Court of session, a charge under Section 342, I. P. C., was also framed against the appellants. The Sessions Judge of Shahjahan pur, who tried the case, found (the appellants guilty under Sections 325 and 843 read with Section 34,I. P. 0. and convicted them accordingly. Each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 325, I. P. 0., and for one year under Section 342, I. P. 0.

(2.) The appellants are Mahabrahmana. A fortnight before the occurrence, Lala Ram appellant had gone to collect jajmani dues from his clients. He had taken Bam Chandar with him. While they were staying at village Saidapur, Bam Chandar stole Bs. 30 belonging to Lala Ram and disappeared. When Lai Ram return. ed to his village, on 19 5 1946, he along with the other appellant, Puttu Lai, went to the house of Ram Chandar, charged him with theft and asked for the return of his money. Ram Chandr denied having stolen the money and refused to pay anything. The intervention of the village patwari proved ineffectual. The appellants then took Bam Chandar to their house, beating him on the way. Earn Chandar's mother and certain other persons asked the appellants to release Bam Chandar, but they refused to do so unless he returned the money. The appellants then confined Ram Chandar inside their house and chained it from outside. Earn Chandar's mother proceeded to make a report at the police station. The appellants went after her, brought her back and gave a few slaps on her face. Ajodhi and others arrived on the scene. When Ajodhi asked the appellants not to beat the woman, they struck him with lathis and he fell down. He died after a few days on the 28th May 1946.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge found that the appellants had wrongfully confined Bam Chandar and had given a beating to Ajodhi with. lathis. He further found that the appellants common intention was to cause grievous hurt to Ajodhi and not to inflict such bodily injuries as were likely to cause his death.