CHHIDDA Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision from convictions of the applicants under Section 147 and Section 323 read with 3. 149, I.P.C., and sentences of imprisonment and fines. The learned Sessions Judge on appeal has reduced the sentence so as to make the sentences of imprisonment under the two sections concurrent.

(2.) It appears that the complainant Sri Ram, who had obtained a decree against Tursia and his son Loka, applied for attachment of the property of his judgment- debtors, and in the company of a commissioner, appointed by the Court went to the village to get the attachment effected. Naubat, one of the applicants, first tried to prevent the attachment on the ground that the cattle sought to be attached did not belong to the judgment-debtors but were his own property. The commissioner however warned him that if he interfered he might come to grief. After some consultation Naubat did not prevent the commissioner from attaching the cattle. But as soon as the attachment had been made and before the commissioner left the place the accused Naubat, along with the other accused persons, came out armed with lathis and raided the complainant Sri Ram. The complainant ran to the commissioner who was only at a distance of some 10 yards from the house of the accused and requested him to protect him. The commissioner, seeing the attitude of the accused, felt himself helpless to intervene at that stage. The assailants pursued the complainant Sri Ram for some distance, overtook him, attacked him and his brother Behari, and felled them down on the ground. Sri Ram received simple hurts with lathis. Both the Courts have accepted this story of the prosecution and have rejected the defence story that the injuries were caused in self defence. According to the medical evidence a large number of injuries were caused to the complainant and his brother though all of them were simple in their nature.

(3.) The main contention on behalf of the applicants is that their convictions under two separate sections of the Indian Penal Code are illegal. The contention is that inasmuch as the act of rioting and of causing injuries to Sri Ram and his party was a part and parcel of one and the same event there should not be separate and distinct convictions and sentences. The learned vakil for the applicants relied on the cases of the Lahore, the Calcutta and the Madras High Courts in support of his contention, but later on had to concede that some cases of this Court are against him. Is unnecessary for me to refer to the various cases of the other High Courts and point out the differences of opinion. But I may note that a Pull Bench of the Bombay High Court has taken a different view and held that separate convictions under Secs.147 and 323 are not illegal: vide the case of Queen-Empress v. Bana Punja (1893) 17 Bom 260 (F B).