KHEMASIL ROUT AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE six Petitioners were convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Rourkela on charges under Sections 148 and 324, Indian Penal Code and each of them, excepting Petitioner No. 1 Khemasil Rout, Petitioner No. 2 Sahadeb Rout and Petitioner No. 4 Brundaban Rout was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/ - on each count and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Petitioners 1, 2 and 4 for their conviction were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal preferred by the Petitioners was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sundergarh.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that in respect of the land in connection with which the occurrence took place, there was a title suit in the Court of the Munsif, Sundergarh, wherein Petitioner No. 1 Khemasil Rout prayed for recovery of possession. That suit was dismissed (Ext. 7). The matter ultimately went up to High Court in second appeal which was dismissed in 1955. Thereafter, Petitioner No. 1 filed an application before the Additional District Magistrate (Ext. 8), Sundergarh praying for settlement of the land with him. This was disposed of in 1970. Petitioner No. 1 's application was rejected on the ground that the informant was in possession (Ext. 9). This order of the A.D.M. was later on confirmed by the Board of Revenue. The prosecution case is that while the informant was in possession of the land, all the Petitioners in a body formed themselves into an (sic) assembly came over the land committed rioting and in the course thereof the informant p.w. 1 was injured with a deadly weapon. Charges under Sections 148 and 326, Indian Penal Code were framed against all the Petitioners. The charge under Section 148, Indian Penal Code against all the ' Petitioners ran thus:

(3.) ON appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the findings and held that the prosecution had conclusively established that the Appellants before him (Petitioners in this Court) were armed with deadly weapons and formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed upon the disputed land with the common object of obtaining possession of the disputed land by show of criminal force and in prosecution of their common object accused Sahadeb caused hurt to p.w. 1 by shooting him with an arrow. In view of this finding, the learned Judge thought that prosecution could successfully bring home to the Appellants the charges under Sections 148 and 324/149, Indian Penal Code, and dismissed the appeal.