STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SAHEBA SAINAPPAL KHODVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in this appeal, hereinafter referred to as " the accused ", were accused Nos. 1 to 13 and 15 in Criminal Case No. 1033 of 1971 and they were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambejogal in Bhir District. They along with accused No. 14 were prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 147, 323, 325 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. A bare enumeration of the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code shows that the case was one of rioting. The learned trial Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 14th of October 1974 convicted accused Nos. 1 to 13 and 15 of the offence punishable under section 147 and Sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. A fine in the sum of Rs. 200/- was also imposed. In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two montns was stipulated Similarly, the said accused were convicted of the offence punishable under section 323 with the consequent sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 100- Rigorous imprisonment for one month was imposed in default of payment of fine All of them were convicted under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence was passed in respect of the said offence. Accused No.3 1 however was further convicted under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200- In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Accused No. 14 was acquitted of all the offences with which he was charged whereas accused Nos. 2 to13 and 15 were acquitted of the offence punishable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of convictions and sentences the accused preferred an appeal, being the case of accused No, 1 the sentence of one year was reduced to 6 months for the offence under section 325 of which he had been convicted. The sentences of fine and the sentences in default of payment of fine were however maintained. Held the '' State has preferred the appealince alncement of the sentence while they have preferred the revision Revision challenging both conviction antence. I have not allowed Mr. Naik, learned Advocate appearing for the accused in the revision Application, to argue on the question of the convictions recorded against the accused for the obvious reason that the accused did not challenge the convictions in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge. It is not the case of the accused that the tefusal of their Advocates in the Court of the learned Sesssions Judge to challenge convicitions was misconceived or that the statement in respect of that refusal contained in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is incorrect. No grievance has been made even in this petition which is some what elaborate that the convictions were the subject matter of challenge before the learned Sessions Judge. It would there fore be impermissible for Mr. Naik to challenge the question of conviction.

(3.) Mr. Patil, appearing in support of the appeal, contended that the learned Sessions Judge was in error in interfering with the sentences awarded by the learned trial Magistrate especially in a case of the present type where it is seen that the accused have taken law in their own hands. It is no doubt true that the cases of rioting should be viewed with grave concern. However Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1974, which was heard and disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge of Bhir by his judgment and order dated 27th of December 1975. It must be mentioned at this stage that before the learned Sessions Judge their conviction was not challenged by the accused at all. Paragraph 6 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge may be reproduced for the sake of convenience. It is as follows:-