SK NABIJAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four petitioners in this application for revision Sk. Nabijan, Sheikh Juman Ali, Sheikh Lijan and Sheikh Niamat alias Sadur Babu--were charged and tried by a Magistrate of the First Class with an offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code and the petitioner Sheikh Niamat was also charged and tried in the same trial with an offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. They were found guilty of an offence charged and all four of them were sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment in respect of the offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code and Sheikh Niamat was sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment in respect of the offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code which was directed to run consecutively to the first imprisonment under Section 323. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge of Purulia upheld the conviction and sentences but directed that the two sentences upon Sheikh Niamat should run concurrently instead of consecutively.

(2.) The prosecution case, so far as it can be gathered from the judgments below, was that there was some dispute between the petitioners and the complainant regarding a piece of land, namely, plot No. 843 in village Chapri and that on 14-7- 1945, between 9 and 9-30 A.M., whilst the complainant was ploughing his said land, the four petitioners entered the land, abused him and objected to his ploughing the land, that a quarrel ensued and that the petitioner Niamat struck the complainant on his head with a tangi. Two eye-witnesses of this occurrence, to which I shall hereinafter refer to as the first incident, intervened and prevented it from taking a serious turn. The complainant and one of these eye-witnesses then started out to Purulia P.S. with a view to lodging an information against the petitioners in respect of this first incident. On the road to the police station at about 10 A.M., and therefore very shortly after the first incident, the four petitioners overtook the complainant and endeavoured to dissuade him from lodging an information. A second altercation took place, and when the complainant insisted on the proceeding to the police station, the four petitioners again assaulted him. I shall hereinafter refer to this latter assault as the second incident. Both the Courts below have held that the prosecution case as above set put was sufficiently established in evidence at the trial.

(3.) The sole grounds taken in support of the application for revision are, firstly, that the charges against the petitioner Sheikh Niamat under Secs.323 and 324, Indian Penal Code, have been illegally joined, and secondly, that the charge against all four petitioners under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, has been illegally tried with the charges under Section 324 against the petitioner Sheikh Niamat.