TMI Blog1963 (8) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icted variously under ss. 147 148, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to smaller terms of imprisonment which need not be mentioned as those sentences are made to run concurrently with the above sentence. They were originally charged under S. 302 read with S. 149, Indian Penal Code for the murder of one Tikam on January 24, 1960 at about noon in village Nandgaon Police Station Barsana District Mathura. The Session Judge, Mathura, did not think that a case of murder was made out and convicted them of the lesser offence. Their appeal to the High Court was dismissed and the conviction and sentences were maintained. There was yet another trial at which these eight persons and four others were tried under S. 307/149, Indian Penal Code for causing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrived on the spot and on seeing Tikam started to assault him. Tikam was severely injured and fell in a ditch adjacent to the road but even after he fell in it the assault was continued by the appellants. He died the same day about five hours later. After assaulting Tikam, these appellants decided to ransack his house and started towards it. On the way they were met by the other four accused and this brought their number to twelve. While they were going to the house of Tikam they saw Puran and decided to beat him. Puran was assaulted and the second case arose out of the assault on him. The learned magistrate who committed the accused to stand their trial before the Court of Sessions framed a common charge in respect of the two incidents but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. It is for this reason that they do not appear to have raised this issue before the learned Judge when they asked him to certify the appeal and his Order does not show that they made a grievance that the hearing was not fair. In our opinion this point cannot be considered because though. it was mentioned in the petition for certificate it was apparently not pressed before Mr. Justice Sharma. The next contention of the appellants is that the prior acquittal in the second case operates as a bar to the conviction in the present case and the High Court ought to have given the appellants the benefit of the prior ac- quittal. Reliance in this connection is placed upon a decision of the Privy Council in a case from Malaya State reported in Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The two cited cases were considered and distinguished by this Court in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab(Cr. A. No. 140 of 1961, decided on 31-7-63 (Unreported).) and Pritam Singh's case was again distinguished in Gurcharen Singh anr. v. State of Punjab([1963] 3 S.C.R. 585). As pointed out in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab(Cr. A. No. 140 of 1961, decided on 31-7-63 (Unreported).), the case of the Privy Council involved a confession by an accused in which he admited possession of a firearm and some ammunition which were both offences under the relative law of Malaya State. He was convicted on the basis of that statement on two counts but on appeal was acquitted in respect of the count relating to the possession of ammunition and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in those cases, the acquittal under the Arms Act was later than the conviction on the substantive charge. There is nothing in common between the present appeal and the two cases relied upon by the appellants. In this case there is no doubt a prior acquittal but on a charge which was quite different from and independent of the charge in the present case. The assault on Tikam was over when the unlawful assembly formed its now common object namely the assault on Puran. The acquittal proceeded mainly because Puran compounded the offence under s. 323 and the High Court did not feel impressed by the evidence about the remaining charges, The charges on which that acquittal took place had nothing whatever to do with the charges on which there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... object of the unlawful assembly was over when the unlawful assembly proceeded to the house of Tikam to loot it. The new common object to beat Puran was formed at a time when the common object in respect of Tikam had been fully worked out and even if the two incidents could be taken to be connected by unity of time and place (which they were not), the offences were dis- tinct and required separate charges. The learned Sessions judge was right in breaking up the single charge framed by the magistrate and ordering separate trials. In this view the prior acquittal cannot create a bar in respect of the conviction herein reached. It was contended by Mr. Tewatia that the earlier judgment involved almost the same evidence and the reasoning of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
