BATISA SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision relates to the conviction of the petitioners under Secs.147 and 347, I. P.C., and their sentences, under the former section of two months rigorous imprisonment and under the latter of six month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50, the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts established are that after nightfall when the complainant Ramphal Singh, an old man of 77 had gone outside his hamlet for purposes of nature and was returning home by the village lane which passes by the dhaba or veranda of Pancham Singh, the first five petitioners seized him and lifted him bodily on to the veranda, laid him down on the straw-strewn floor, Radha gagged him, Kapildeo said to the petitioner Barmeshwar "Light a lantern and take his thumb impression" and Keshari took his thumb impressions on no fewer than six pieces of papers and then they let him go. The common object set out in the charge under Section 147 was: to wrongly confine Ramphal Singh, for the purpose of extorting thumb impression from him. and the charge under Section 347 was of wrongly confining him: for the purpose of extorting from him certain property, to wit, thumb impressions on certain blank pieces of papers which can be used as valuable securities.

(3.) Mr. S. Sinha in support of the rule urges: (1) that convictions under both the charges cannot be legal; (2) that Ramphal Singh being very short-sighted, the petitioners have not been adequately identified; (3) that the conviction under Section 347 is not sustainable on the facts in view of the definition of "valuable security"; and (4) that the sentence is severe, the offences being merely technical. As [to the first point, it is indisputable that separate convictions under Sections 147 and 347 are perfectly legal.