LALA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case was referred to a Bench of two Judges by one of us in view of certain important questions of law that arise in it. In order to appreciate those questions it is necessary to state a few facts.

(2.) It appears that information was received by the Police authorities that one Kuddu was concealing himself in a certain village at Jaunpur, and in order to effect his arrest a head constable Safdar Husain with three constables proceeded to the village. The Sub-Inspector was absent from the thana at that moment, and when he came to know that a police party had proceeded to arrest Kuddu he also went in the same direction. He met the raiding party in the way as they were coming back after having arrested Kuddu, but they informed the Sub-Inspector that certain other undesirable persons were also in the village. He, therefore, proceeded to investigate the matter and was going towards the house of Ahibaran. When he was at a short distance from the house he saw that Sobha and Raghunath were attacking Ahibaran with a spear and a lathi. The reason of this attack presumably was that it was Ahibaran who had informed the police about the whereabouts of Kuddu. On seeing the Sub-Inspector Sobha and Raghunath took to their heels. They were pursued and Sohba was ultimately arrested. He, however, raised an alarm and called for help. Upon this the three applicants before us along with others arrived at the scene and assaulted the Sub-Inspector and caused him injuries. While the Sub-Inspector was being beaten Sobha released him-self and fled away.

(3.) Upon these facts, the three applicants before us along with two others were after a Magisterial enquiry committed to the Court of Session and they were tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge under Secs.333, 225, 323,. 325 and 147, I.P.C. The charge under Section 147, I.P.C, was triable with the aid of assessors whereas the other charges were triable with the help of jurors. The same set of persons acted as assessors as well as jurors. On the 13 November 1930 the jurors returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty, but they as assessors were of the opinion that the three applicants before us were present at the time of the assault and were thus guilty of rioting. They expressed some doubts about the presence of the two other persons who were tried along with the three applicants. The learned assistant Sessions Judge was of the opinion that as only three persons were proved to have taken part in rioting the charge under Section 147, I.P.C, could not be maintained and he, therefore, acquitted the present applicants under Section 147, I.P.C. It is not necessary for us to express an opinion upon this view of the law taken by the Assistant Sessions Judge and we only mention this fact as showing that the accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 147, I.P.C. As the assessors who were also jurors thought that the three applicants before us were guilty of rioting the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the jurors were somewhat inconsistent in having acquitted the accused under Secs.323 and 325, I.P.C, and he, therefore, asked the jurors to retire and reconsider their verdict on these two charges. Upon reconsideration the jurors returned a unanimous verdict of guilty under Secs.323 and 325, I.P.C, against the three applicants before us. The Assistant Sessions Judge agreeing with this verdict of the jury convicted them of these two charges and sentenced them to 1 year's R.I., under Section 323, I.P.C, and 3 year's R.I., under Section 325, I.P.C, and acquitted them of the charges under Secs.333 and 225, I.P.C.