STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RUKMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the accused reapondents, residents of village Kasdol, police station Tamnar, were prosecuted by the police for offences under Sections 148, 324 and 325, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, charged accused Rukman with the offences under Sections 149, 324 and 325/149, Indian Penal Code, and the rest of the accused with the offenses of rioting, hurt and grievous hurt with the common object of beating the complainant Karunasindhu under Sections 147, 323 and 325 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. After the close of evidence of the prosecution and the defence an application was filed by the complainant on 23. 3. 1964 for permission to com. pound the offences under Sections 324 and 325, Indian Penal Code and the learned Magistrate granted the same by his order dated 4. 5. 1964 and in consequence an order of acquittal was passed in respect of the charges framed against the accused under Sections 323, 324 and 325, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate relying on the ruling in Ramphal Gope v. State of Bihar 1964 2 Cri LJ 111 (Pat) came to the conclusion that as the object of the accused was to beat Karunasindhu and the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 149. Indian Penal Code had already been allowed to be compounded under Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused are entitled to be acquitted of the charges under Sections 147 and 148, Indian Penal Code, though they are not compoundable. Accordingly, he passed an order of acquittal so far as the offences under Sections 147 and 148, Indian Penal Code are concerned. The State has now come up in appeal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order of acquittal.

(2.) SHRI Chansoria, the learned Deputy Government Advocate, has contended before us that the learned Magistrate has fallen into an error in acquitting the accused of the offenses under Sections 147 and 148, Indian Penal Code on the ground that the offences against the accused under Sections 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code have been compounded. He has stressed that the offences under Sections 147 and 148 are distinct and separate offences which are not compoundable and therefore the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal. In support he has cited the rulings in Agha Nazarwali v. Emperor AIR 1941 Sind 186; Gurunarayan Das v. Emperor AIR 1948 Pat 58 and The Grown v. Mohammad Husain AIR 1950 Lah 121.

(3.) SHRI Shukla, the learned Counsel for the accused respondents has, on the other hand, argued that the common object of the members of the unlawful assembly was to beat the complaining Karunasindhu and the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code having been compounded with the permission of the Court, it automatically entailed acquittal of the accused of the offences under Sections 147 and 148, Indian Penal Code, as the object being the same, these offences could not exist separately. He has cited Basireddi v. Khyrat Ali (1913) 20 Ind Cas 618 (Cal); Gayadin v. Emperor 1984-35 Cri LJ 804 and 1964-2 Cri LJ 111 (Pat ).