9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the processes issued under Sections 87 and 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). 2. Whether the accused were members of an unlawful assembly with a common object. 3. Whether the accused caused hurt to the Sub-Inspector. 4. Specific convictions under Section 342 and Section 332 of the Penal Code. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Processes Issued under Sections 87 and 88, CrPC The petitioners argued that the warrants and processes were invalid due to the lack of specific details, such as the parentage of Dukhi Mahto. The court acknowledged that the processes were defective as they did not include sufficient details to identify the accused with certainty. The lower appellate court found that although there were two individuals named Dukhi Mahto, the one mentioned in the processes was the petitioner, a son of Prem Narain Mahto. The court referred to precedents such as Alter Caufman v. Government of Bombay and Debi Singh v. Queen-Empress, which emphasized the necessity of specific identification in warrants. The court further analyzed the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector, which indicated that the processes were issued without a prior warrant. This was deemed ultra vires, as both Sections 87 and 88 require a warrant to be issued first. The court concluded that the processes were issued without jurisdiction, rendering them invalid. 2. Membership of Unlawful Assembly with Common Object The lower appellate court formulated this issue to determine whether the accused were part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of deterring the Sub-Inspector from discharging his duties and rescuing the attached properties. The court found against the petitioners on this point, establishing that the common object mentioned in the charge was made out. However, due to the invalidity of the processes, the convictions under Section 147 and 332/149 of the Penal Code were set aside. 3. Causing Hurt to the Sub-Inspector The court examined whether the accused caused hurt to the Sub-Inspector, Baidyanath Prasad Roy. The lower appellate court found that Damar Mahto and Kishun Mahto caused hurt to the Sub-Inspector. However, given the ultra vires nature of the processes, their convictions were altered from Section 332 to Section 323 of the Penal Code, but the sentences of one year's rigorous imprisonment were maintained. 4. Specific Convictions under Section 342 and Section 332 of the Penal Code The court analyzed the convictions of Sukhdeo Mahto and Rajendra Upadhya under Section 342, Penal Code. These individuals were search witnesses, and their presence at the scene was for a legitimate purpose. The court found no evidence that they actively participated in confining the Sub-Inspector and thus acquitted them, giving them the benefit of the doubt. The convictions of Baldeo Singh, Harihar Mahto, and Harekishun Mahto under Section 342 were maintained, as they were found to have wrongfully confined the Sub-Inspector. The sentences passed on them under this section were upheld. Conclusion The court modified the order of the lower court, setting aside the convictions and sentences under Sections 147 and 332/149 of the Penal Code due to the invalidity of the processes. The convictions of Baldeo Singh, Harihar Mahto, and Harekishun Mahto under Section 342 were maintained, as were the sentences. The convictions of Damar Mahto and Kishun Mahto were altered to Section 323, but their sentences of one year's rigorous imprisonment were upheld. Other petitioners were acquitted and set at liberty. Separate Judgments Shearer, J. concurred with the judgment.
|
