SATYADEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the accused persons, Satyadeo Singh. Kailash Saran Singh and Ram Lakhan Yadav. The first two come from village Beri and the third from village Majhanpura. within the same police station Bikram (Patna). They were all charged under Sections 144 and 430 of the Indian Penal Code, The Magistrate, however, found the latter charge not substantiated, and accordingly, acquitted them of it. As regards the first charge under Section 144 he found it duly proved against all the three and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months each. On appeal to the Sessions Judge their conviction and sentence were upheld and the appeal was dismissed, vide judgment dated 26-6-1969 of the Assistant Sessions Judge. Being aggrieved, they have filed this revision.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that on 23-10-1966 Nandu Rai and others were irrigating their lands from the canal through village channel. All of a sudden at about 11 P. M. the supply of water in the channel fell down. At this they all went up the canal to find out its reason. In course of that, they reached near Majhanpura Beri bridge where they found a big cut in the northern bank of the canal through which water was flowing down. At that place in the torch light flashed by one of them they noticed 15 to 20 persons including these accused standing armed with deadly weapons like garasa. bhala etc. Of those persons they identified these three accused. When they wanted to fill up that cut they were prevented from doing so by those persons who also became ready to fight. THEreafter, they went to Bikram and filed a written petition (Ext. 1) to the Assistant Engineer that very night who in his turn, forwarded that petition to the Bikram police for information and necessary action with his forwarding note (Ext. 3).

(3.) IN course of the trial, they were, as observed about, charged under two sections, 144 and 430 of the INdian Penal Code. As it appears from the judgment of the Magistrate, he acquitted them of the charge under Section 430 because there , was no evidence before him to show that any of them had made the alleged cut in the canal embankment causing diminution in the supply of water. Both the courts have, however, on examination of the materials on record, held the charge under section 144 duly proved against them. The Magistrate's finding in this behalf is that the three accused persons were members of unlawful assembly duly armed with bhala, garasa and lathi with a common intention to watch the hole and not to allow anybody to repair it. The Assistant Sessions Judge has held that the prosecution has been able to show that the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapons, and their common intention was to do mischief connected with the offence of unlawful rioting and this finding is in consonance with the charge framed against them where they have been said to be members of an unlawful assembly for committing mischief connected with the offence of rioting.