DAL CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by Dalchand against the appellate judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, dated 21st of June, 1963, maintaining his convictions under Sections 452 and 323, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was convicted by the Munsif Magistrate, Jhalawar, by his order dated 31st January, 1963 for these offences The Munsif Magistrate awarded 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs, 3oo/-, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under Section 452 and one month's rigorous imprisonment under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge while maintaining the convictions modified the sentences awarded by the Munsif Magistrate. He set aside the sentence of fine awarded under Section 452. He also set aside the substantive sentence under Section 323 but awarded a sentence of fine amounting to Rs, 100/-and in default directed that the accused will undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE fads giving rise to the prosecution of the petitioner and four other persons, namely Gorilal, Daulatram, Parmanand and Tulsiram, are briefly these: The petitioner Dalchand and the co-accused Gorilal and Diulatram are real brothers. The other two accused Tulsiram and Parmanand are the sons of accused Gorilal. Thus all the five accused are mem-bers of one family. The complainant Ridhkaran obtained a lease of a shop belonging to the accused in village Pakanl. The complainant installed one floor-mill and a machine for extracting oil In the shop. The complainant also is alleged to have purchased some open land towards the north of the shop and constructed a tin shed on the open place. Two doors of the shop in lease were opened in the tin shed by the complainant. The complainant's case was that the accused wanted the complainant to vacate the shop but he declined to do so. Therefore, the accused adopted wrong methods to secure the vacant possession of the shop. According to him, on 10th May, 1961 the accused collected stones for purposes of construction and thereby obstructed the way to the shop occupied by the complainant. The complainant objected to the collection of the stones by the accused, whereupon the accused entered the tin shed and attacked him. According to the complainant, Dalchand the petitioner took a 'salia' of the cart and inflicted in-juries upon him. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Bakani and the police registered a case under Sections 147, 341 and 452, Indian Penal Code and started investigation. After investigation the police challaned five persons including the petitioner in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Jhalawar. The Munsiff Magistrate acquitted Parmanand. He con-victed the petitioner Dalchand under Sections 452 and 323, Indian Penal Code. Gorilal and Daultram were convicted under Section 448, Indian Penal Code and were awarded two months' rigorous imprisonment. Tulsiram was also convicted under Section 448 but was released in accordance with Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Dalchand, Gorilal and Daulatram Sled a joint appeal in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, acquitted Gorilal and Daulatram but maintained the convictions of the petitioner with modification of sentences as indicated above.

(3.) MR. Kasliwal, appearing for the petitioner. in the first instance, challenged the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below with regard to the petitioner. After considering the relevant portions of the record and examining the judgments of the two Courts below, I have no hesitation In coming to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to justify the findings of facts arrived at by Courts below. No case for reappraisement of the evidence is revision has been made out. The Courts below were right in accepting substantially the prosecution case.