DHANIRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution clearly establishes that all the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly and the common object of this assembly was to assault and in prosecution of their common object they had committed the offence of rioting and that in prosecution of their common object they had all assaulted Sutikshan Prasad (P.W. 5) and his son Nohar Prasad causing simple injuries on their person and so it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in holding all the appellants guilty of the offence u/ss 147, and 323/149 IPC and so their convictions on this count calls for no interference in this appeal.

(2.) THE learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence u/s 452 IPC also but, in my opinion, the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in this regard is not very reliable because the evidence adduced in this regard does not conclusively establish the fact that the appellants had committed house trespass having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or assaulting any person because both Sutikshan Prasad and his son Nohar Prasad had been assaulted outside the house and then they had entered inside the house and had closed the doors and then they had run away through the other door to Palari. Bhupatram (P.W. 2) had tried to show that he had been assaulted in his Court -yard and that he has received injuries on his head and neck from which bleeding had taken place but version of this witness in this regard has rightly been disbelieved by the learned TriaI Judge (as per para 10 of his judgment). The charge against the appellants u/s 452 IPC was that they had committed house trespass after having made preparation for causing hurt to Bhupatram but the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is respect of this charge is not very reliable and convincing because the learned trial Judge has himself disbelieved the version given by Bhupatram (P.W. 2) about his having been assaulted by the appellants in his court -yard. The reasons given by the learned Judge for holding all the appellants guilty of the charge u/s 452 IPC are not very convincing and, in my opinion, all the appellants are liable to be acquitted of the charge u/s 452 IPC.

(3.) AS regards sentence there are mitigating circumstances on record to show that the appellants are not criminals but they are cultivators and that thy crowd had collected to compromise some matter and that compromise talks had taken place for about 5 to 7 minutes as has also come in the version of Bhupendra Narayan Pandey (P.W. 8) but later on some hot words were exchanged and then the alleged incident had taken place. The incident had taken place on 25.10.1981 and more than 10 years have passed since then. Considering all the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it would not be just or proper to send the appellants to undergo their jail sentences awarded u/s 147 and 323/149 IPC after a lapse of over 10 years and in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met by imposing a sentence of fine on them in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on them by the trial Court.