Patna High Court
Ramphal Gope And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar on 20 December, 1957
Equivalent citations: 1964CRILJ111
ORDER Syed Naqui Imam, J.
1. This is an application in revision against the order of the learned appellate Court dismissing the petitioners' appeal. The petitioners Ramphal Gope and Roshan Gope were convicted by the trial Court under Section 148 Indian Penal. Code and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. They were further convicted under Section 324 Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence was passed. The remaining petitioners were convicted by the trial Court under Section 148-Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and also convicted under Sections 324/34 Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence was passed. The appellate Court-altered the convictions from under Sections 148 to 147 Indian Penal Code, and from 324 to 323-Indian Penal Code and from 324/34 to 323/34 Indian Penal Code, and reduced the sentence of' imprisonment of one year to a fine of Rs. 100/-, and the three months rigorous imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 50
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the 24th January,1957, Ramphal Gope and one other man came to the house of Ramdeo Gope and demanded the price of onion seedlings which was due. Ramdeo told that he would pay the price when ho would get the price of milk which he had supplied to others. This led to hot words. It is said that on the following day at about 8 or 8-30 a. m, the petitioners came to the house of Ramdeo and demanded payment of the price at once, but Ramdeo refused. Thereafter it is said that Ramdeo was assaulted by all the petitioners.
3. Mr. Baidya Nath Prasad appearing for the petitioners has pointed put to me that before theft-trial Court there was a compromise petition filed and the trial Court accepted the compromise so far as the offence under Section 333 Indian Penal Code was concerned. Now that the appellate Court has found these petitioners guilty under Sections 323 and 323/34, Indian Penal Code, in my opinion, the compromise petition can be put into effect even at this stage. There now remains the charge under Section 147 Indian Penal Code which is not compoundable. But it appears that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to assault. If the charges under Sections 323 and 323/34 Indian Penal Code fail on account of the compromise, it is obvious that the charge under Section 147 Indian Penal Code must also fail because the common object was to assault. For this reason I am satisfied that the petitioners must be acquitted of all the charges framed against them. The application is accordingly allowed, and the order of conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners is set aside.