JAMUNA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4 Petitioners Jamuna Singh, Bhagwat Singh, Awadh Kishore Singh and Dina Nath Singh have been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one month each. They were also convicted tinder Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence was passed thereunder.

(2.) The prosecution case was briefly as follows: On January 4, 1958 Keshab Banerjee, Swaraj Singh, Kuar Pandey and Bake Singh were travelling by taxi from Barabani Colliery to Asansol. When near Nunia bridge the taxi was stopped by another car which overtook the taxi and then blocked the progress of the taxi by turning to the left in front of the taxi. Four men came out of the car which had blocked the way of the taxi, with hockey sticks in their hands, and started striking the taxi damaging and breaking the wind screen and the glass windows they also struck Keshab and his companions with the hockey sticks. At that time a bus came along and seeing the bus approaching the accused party left in their car. Bake Singh happened to know one Tulshi Napit who was travelling by the bus and asked him, to inform the Union office about the incident. It should be mentioned that Keshab, Swaraj Singh, Kuar Pandey and Bake Singh who were travelling by taxi were the members of the Mazdoor Union of Colliery workers, whereas Jamuna Singh and other accused were members of Mazdoor Congress Union; and a good deal of rivalry and ill-feeling were going on between the two Unions, and it was suggested that out of the ill-feeling arising from the rivalry between the two Unions, the complainant party travelling by taxi was thus attacked and belabored. After the accused went away in their car, Keshab and others proceeded in their taxi to Asansol police-station and there Bake Singh lodged an ejahar at about 8 p.m. on the same day in which the Petitioners, Jamuha Singh, Bhagwat Singh, Awadh, Kishore Singh and Dina Nath Singh were all mentioned as people who had attacked them.

(3.) The defence was that the case was a false one, that no much occurrence had taken place as alleged by the prosecution, and that in any case the assailants had been recognised and that the Petitioners were named out of enmity as they were prominent members of the rival Union: