Patna High Court
Ramdarsan Mahton And Ors. vs Emperor on 11 January, 1929
Equivalent citations: 116IND. CAS.523, AIR 1929 PATNA 206
JUDGMENT Wort, J.
1. This rule is directed against the conviction of 14 persons for an offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 were sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 40, petitioners Nos. 5 and 10 to 14 sentenced to a fine of Rs. 40, and as regards petitioner No. 7, Sobhit, he was sentenced under Section 147 to two months and a fine of Rs. 40 and a separate sentence under Section 324 of one month. He is the person who appears to have caused the only serious hurt in the case.
2. In the first place it is argued that the separate sentences under these two sections on this petitioner are illegal by reason of the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code. I have already decided in this Court that whether two separate sentences in circumstances of such an encounter are illegal depends upon the facts of the case. In this case the common object of the unlawful assembly was the very hurt which was perpetrated by petitioner No. 7 and, therefore, in my judgment, it comes within the mischief of Section 71 of the Code. The separate sentences, therefore, in the case of petitioner No. 7 cannot stand.
3. The only substantial point which was raised before me by Mr. Sinha was first of all that there is no actual finding of the common object. I have stated in effect what that common object was, and, on a perusal of the judgments of the Courts below, one can see that the whole of the judgments were directed to the question of whether this hurt had been caused or not. It was, therefore, unnecessary to come to a definite finding in terms of the common object, that is to say, whether the common object had been established, because, as I have stated, that question formed the substance of the judgments.
4. The other matter is the question of sentence. I think the justice of the case will be met by setting aside the sentences of imprisonment as regards all the petitioners excepting petitioner No. 7, and substituting therefor a sentence equal to the term of imprisonment which they have already undergone. So far as the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 are concerned, the sentence of fine of Rs. 40 will stand. As regards the petitioners Nos. 5 and 10 to 14, a fine of Rs. 25 will be substituted for the fine of Rs. 40. As regards petitioner No. 7 the sentence under Section 147 will be set aside but the sentence under Section 324 will stand, that is to say, one month's rigorous imprisonment. He will surrender to his bail and serve out the remainder of that sentence.