Allahabad High Court
Empress Of India vs Ram Adhin And Ors. on 13 February, 1879
Equivalent citations: (1880)ILR 2ALL139
JUDGMENT Pearson, J.
1. To day it is brought to my notice that the learned Judges Norman and Seton-Karr in the case of the Queen v. Kallachand 7 W.R. Cr. 60, disposed of by them on the 29th April 1867, held rioting armed with deadly weapons to be a distinct offence from stabbing a person on whose premises the riot took place, and each to be separately punishable. It appears that in the case of Queen v. Hargobind H.C.R. N.W.P. 1871, p. 174, decided by this Court on 7th July 1871, Mr. Justice Turner held that persons found guilty of rioting may, if the circumstances warrant it, be convicted of the several offences of rioting armed with deadly weapons, culpable homicide, and grievous hurt. The learned Judge referred to the case of Rabi-ulla mentioned above, and expressed his dissent from the ruling therein, and observed that a different view of the law had heretofore obtained in this Court. It further appears that the learned Judges of the Calcutta Court who disposed of Rabi-ulla's case ruled in a different direction in the case disposed of by them in the following month of April. On the whole the precedents which have been produced are opposed to the contention in this case. It is obvious to remark that rioting and unlawful assembly are offences against the public tranquility, while assault, hurt, etc., are offences affecting the human body. Seeing no sufficient reason for the interference, I reject this application.