KANHAIYALAL MULCHAND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appcts. have been convicted of an offence Under Section 143, I. P. C. and sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 30 each.

(2.) IT is common ground that on 20-5-1948, which was a bazar day at mouza Nohta, there was a quarrel between one Lotania Chamar, a labourer engaged by one Bhaiyalal for collecting tendu leaves, and Bhaiyalal's servant Ramprasad. The quarrel culminated in Ramprasad assaulting Lotania. On account of this the chamara of the village became enraged and went in a body to the house of Bhaiyalal and actually committed a riot. According to the prosecution the appcts. were standing on the chabutra of a neem tree situate at a distance of 65 feet from Bhaiyalal's house and encouraged the rioters by their shouts to beat Bhaiyalal. The appcts. deny their presence on the chabutra at the relevant time and say that each of them has been falsely implicated in the case by Bhaiyalal on account of enmity.

(3.) THE prosecution evidence is discrepant on the questions as to what words were actually used in order to encourage the rioters and as to who used them. On the other hand it is clear from the prosecution evidence that the appcts. did not accompany the rioters, that the rioters went straight to the house of Bhaiyalal, and that it was after that that the appcts. shouted words of encouragement to them. The question, therefore, is whether by shouting such, words the appcts. became 'members of an unlawful assembly. '