Orissa High Court
Gadadhar Guru And Anr. vs State Of Orissa on 7 April, 1989
JUDGMENT L. Rath, J.
1. These two revisions are disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the same judgment. The petitioners in both the revisions have been convicted under Section 160, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 51/-. The allegations against them were that both the groups of petitioners in both the revisions were fighting with each other at a public place disturbing the public peace. The prosecution case is that the informant A.S.I. had gone to the village on 1-7-82 for enquiring into Station Diary Entries Nos. 14 and 15 of the same day and during enquiry learnt that both, the groups of accused had fought with each other. For such reason, he drew up the F.I.R., Ext. 6, and reported the matter to the O.I.C.
2. P.Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 5 have been examined as eye-witnesses to the fight by the two groups and P.Ws. 2 and 6 are the doctors who have been examined to prove the injuries respectively on the petitioners in Cri. Revn. No. 188/85 and Cri. Revn. No. 205/85 respectively.
3. An offence of affray in essence consists of three ingredients, the first being fighting by two or more persons, secondly, the fighting must take place in a public place and thirdly such fighting must also result in disturbance of the public peace. Only if such ingredients are satisfied an offence of affray can be said to have occasioned for which the persons causing the same would be responsible. The learned S.D.J.M. on an analysis of the evidence came to the conclusion that the two groups of petitioners had fought with each other on the village Danda which was a public place and thereafter observed that since the fight was at such a place, it was natural that due to the fight annoyance would have been caused in the locality and being of such view, he convicted the petitioners.
4. Even if the conclusions reached by the learned S.D.J.M. as regards mutual fight between the two groups and that the place of the fight was the village Danda are upheld, yet the conclusion reached that the fight must have necessarily caused annoyance to the public and hence satisfied the third ingredient of Section 159. I.P.C. would not be justified.
5. In the first place annoyance to public, if at all, is not necessarily also disturbance of public peace which is more pervasive and of wider reach. In a prosecution under Section 159, I.P.C. there must be positive evidence of public peace having been disturbed which would mean that by the action of the accused the even tempo of life of the public was disturbed resulting in affecting the peace and tranquillity of the locality. No such evidence has admittedly been led. It was observed in (1962) 1 Cri LJ 339 (Ker), Podan v. State of Kerala, that mere causing inconvenience to the public is not disturbance of public peace the two being entirely different notions.
6. In the second place, there is also no conclusive evidence that because of the fight any annoyance has resulted to the public.
7. In view of such fact, it has to be held that the charge under Section 160, I.P.C. has not been established against the petitioners and therefore the conviction is liable to be set aside,
8. In the result, the revisions are allowed. The conviction of the petitioners is quashed.