KARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code. They had originally been convicted under Sections 153 and 298 of the Indian Penal Code and had been sentenced under the former Section to six month's rigorous imprisonment and under the latter section to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The lower appellate Court, however, acquitted the petitioners of the offence punishable under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code and reduced the sentence passed under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code from six months to three months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) On the facts found there can be no question that on the 25th of May 1950, at 10 a.m., one Jiwachh Sah noticed the petitioners killing a cow in the field of one Sk, Sadique. The animal was observed to have its throat cut and Jiwachh Sah informed the choukidar. When the choukidar arrived, he saw the petitioners cutting the cow to pieces and taking the meat in baskets. There was subsequently a sulehnama, as it is described, whereby the Muslims of the village declared that there would be no such repetition of the incident which had taken place. There was, however, one Mujibur Rahman who stood in the way of this Sulehnama with the result that the petitioners along with Mujibur Rahman were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 153 and 298 of the Indian Penal Code. By the irony of things Mujibur Rahman was acquitted--the individual who had prevented an amicable settlement of the trouble in the locality. I am, however, not concerned with that matter in the present proceedings.

(3.) The Sessions Judge in appeal, as I have already said, acquitted the petitioners of the offence punishable under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code and so far as the offence punishable under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned definitely found that the act of the petitioners was not malignant or malicious but that it was wanton. On behalf of the petitioners it has been urged that their act was not wanton, and even if it was wanton, the act which they committed was not illegal having regard to the definition of that word in Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, there could be no conviction under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code which runs as follows :