G.D.Sahgal, J. - (1.)MULLA Singh, Bhabhuti Singh, son of Lalita Singh, Ram Bharosey Singh, Mangal Rai. Badri Bhurji. Debi, Ganga Prasad, Jagmohan, Bhabhuti Singh son of Himanchal Ram Charan. Prahlad Singh. Sriram. Surian Singh, Moti and Nanha have all been convicted by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge of Unnao of an offence under Section 147 Indian Penal Code i.e. rioting and have each been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year Out of them Moti has been convicted of an offence under Section 234 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. for resisting or obstructing his lawful apprehension and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The other appellants except Moti have been convicted of an offence under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of that Code i.e. for resisting or obstructing lawful apprehension and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment each. They have all been convicted under two counts under Section 332 read with Section 149 of the Code and sentenced each to two years rigorous imprisonment under each of the two counts under this provision of law. They have further been convicted of an offence under Section 426 read with Section 149 and sentenced each to one months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
(2.)BINDESHWARI Prasad (P.W. 2) and Bhagwati Prasad (P.W. 3) are Constables who were posted at police Station Bangarmau in the district of Unnao at the relevant time. On the 4th of February, 1964 they left the police station at 4.05 P.M. on patrol duty. Moti appellant was wanted at police station Bangarmau in connection with an offence under Section 459 of the Indian Penal Code. Sub-Inspector Rameshwar Singh (P.W. 8), Station Officer of the police station had asked these Constables to arrest Moti. Both these constables during the course of their round reached Gan.i Muradabad. There they received information that Moti was in his village Khushrajpur and could be arrested. They proceeded on their bicycle to that village and from village Ganj Muradabad they took along with them one Buddha (not examined as a witness in the case) and Ali Hasan (P.W. 6). They arrived in front of the shop of Bhabhuti Singh son of Lalita Singh appellant. Then they saw Moti coming in that direction, according to the prosecution case, they arrested Moti and informed him that he was an accused under Section 459 of the Indian Penal Code. It was about 6 P.M When these constables arrested Moti he began to raise alarm crying for help. All the other 14 appellants and Chunni who is a brother of Moti then rushed to his help They are said to have asked the constables to set Moti free but the Constables informed them that they would take him to the Police Station because he was an accused Four or five persons from out of these 15 persons were armed with dandas They then rescued Moti from the detention of the Constables Moti also made an attempt to get himself extricated. Some of the appellants are said to have dealt danda blows on the persons of the two Constables. They also tore the shirts of the uniform which they were putting on and were instrumental in rescuine Moti. On the raising of the alarm by the Constables, Kundan (P.W. 9) and Kuber (P.W. 5) and many others arrived on the scene. The Constables then went to the police station and lodged the information Ex. Ka 1 there. They were examined by Dr. I.C. Dixit, Medical Officer-in-charge Bangarmau Dispensary the next day at 9.40 P.M. The following injury was found on the person of Bindeshwari Prasad (P.W. 2). contusion 2" x 1" on the back of left thigh 12" above the left knee. Following injuries were found on the person of Bhagwati Prasad (P.W. 3) who was examined ten minutes earlier by the same doctor:
1. Lacerated wound 11/4" x 1/4" x scalp on the front of the Head 31/2" above the bridge of the nose. 2. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on the top of right knee.
These injuries appeared to the doctor to be fresh and were caused by some blunt weapon. It is in these circumstances that the appellants were prosecuted for the various offences referred to above, of which they have been found guilty.
The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. They denied that the incident took place in front of the shop of Bhabhuti Singh. On the other hand they contended that it took place at the residence of Moti. One of the appellants Mangal contended that the police took a large number of residents of the village to the police station and he also was taken to the police station. Several persons were set free while the rest were detained. The plea of Ganga Prasad was that on the next day the police came in the village and all the villagers were taken to the police station. The villagers who gave money were released and the rest were challaned. The case of the appellants would further appear from the statements of the two defence witnesses produced in the case, Lal Singh and Badri According to that case it was Chunni brother of Moti who ran away from his house as the Constables came to arrest him. He was chased by these two Constables but they could not catch him whereafter they left the village saying that the whole village would be burnt the next day.

(3.)NINE witnesses in all were produced on behalf of the prosecution, out of whom Bindeshwari Prasad and Bhagwati Prasad re the two Constables as P.Ws. 2 and 3 while Kundan, Kuber All Hasan P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6 are the three eye witnesses. All Hasan (P.W. 6) is the person who was taken by these Constables along with them from Ganj Muradabad to the village where they had proceeded to arrest Moti.