Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

47. It has been discussed above that all the accused persons excepting accused Prithvi Nath Pandey, Chandra Deep Pandey and Ram Nath had participated in attacking the police party and forcibly securing the release of Dhanajai Pandey from lawful custody. The presence of other persons -at that moment cannot be ruled out and it is admitted by Constable Sripat Ram (P.W. 2) that 5-7 onlookers were present besides the accused persons when Dhananjai Pandey was rescued after scuffle. He had even named accused Ram Nath Pandey, son of Chandrika, as one of them but could not tell the names of other persons. The definite case of the prosecution is that from that place the accused party had taken Constable Sripal Ram and H. C. Raghunath Rai after seizing them to the place near the Plani of accused Rameo Pandey where they wrongfully confined. It would thus appear that only those accused persons who had actually participated in attacking the police party and in rescuing Dhananjai Pandey had seized these two police personnel and had wrongfully confined them. The presence of other persons of the village near the Plani of Ramdeo Pandey cannot be ruled out as it is quite common in village people that they assemble as spectators particularly when two police personnel had been made to sit in the village at that place. Accused Prithvi Nath Pandey and Chandra Deep Pandey had been found to have no role in the occurrence in which accused Dhananjai Pandey was rescued. The prosecution has nowhere given evidence that from that place accused Prithvi Nath Pandey and Chandra Deep Pandey and also seized the said two police personnel and had brought them along with other accused who had attacked them to the place near the Plani of accused Ramdeo Pandey. No doubt, these two accused persons haye received injuries but that is not abnormal or unnatural as the police had arrested them from the spot and they might have used force to affect their arrest. H. C. Raghunath Rai in his cross-examination showed his ignorance about the injuries caused to accused persons at the time of their arrest. The presence of Prithvi Nath Pandey and Chandra Deep Pandey though at the time of arrest cannot be disputed at the place from where the said two police personnel were rescued but it does not necessarily indicate that they had also seized and confined the said police personnel. In my opinion, accused Prithvi Nath Pandey and Chandra Deep Pandey having not participated in the act of securing the release of accused Dhananjai Pandey after attacking the police party cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 342, I.P.C. merely because they were present near the Plani of accused Ramdeo Pandey in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence that they had seized and wrongfully confined the said two police personnel. They are thus not found guilty for the offence under Section 342, I.P.C.

51. However, the finding of the trial court regarding Prithvi Nath Pandey, Chandra Deep Pandey and Ram Nath Pandey under Section 332 and 225, I.P.C. is set aside and they are acquitted of the offences under Sections 332 and 225, I.P.C.

52. Accused Ramanand Pandey, Ramdeo Pandey, Rajnath Pandey, Yadunath Pandey, Shiv Prasad Pandey, Barmeshwar Pandey, Ram Adhar Pandey, Ishwar Dayal Pandey and Uma Shankar Misra are also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 342, I.P.C. and, therefore, their conviction by the trial court under Section 342, I.P.C. is accordingly upheld.

53. However, accused Prithvi Nath Pandey, Chandra Deep Pandey and Ram Nath Pandey are not found guilty for the offence under Section 342, I.P.C. and, therefore, the finding of the trial court in that regard is set aside and they are acquitted of {he offence under Section 342, I.P.C.

54. The finding of the trial court for convicting accused Dhananjai Pandey under Section 332, I.P.C. is set aside and he is acquitted of the offence under Section 332, I.P.C. The trial court has convicted him wrongfully under Section 225, I.P.C. instead of under section 224, I.P.C. as stated above. Consquently, while upholding the conviction of accused Dhananjai Pandey on that score, he is convicted under Section 224, I.P.C. in place of 225, I.P.C.

56. As regards the sentences under Sections 225, I.P.C. and 342, I.P.C. the sentence awarded by the trial court is upheld. Accused-appellant Dhananjai Pandey is, however, sentenced to one year's R.I. under Section 224, I.P.C.

57. In the result the appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the convictions and sentences awarded to appellants Prithvi Nath Pandey, Chandra Deep Pandey and Ram Nath Pandey under Sections 332, 225 and 342, I.P.C. are set aside and they are acquitted of all the said offences. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.