The appeltants obtained from this Court special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution and hence this appeal.
The jury returned a majority verdict that both of them were guilty of the offences under those sections.
They, however, without anything more accepted the majority verdict and held the appellants guilty of the offences under Sections 435 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to six months rigorous imprisonment each.
58/8 of 1948/50 filed by Kailash Rai against the appellants in regard to the same.
There had been proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in regard to this area leading up to a title suit being T.S. No.
3 set fire to the Punjaul.
On March 4, 1951, Kailash Rai was sitting in the Palani and at about 3 to 4 p.m. a mob companysisting of about 100 to 125 persons including the appellants all armed with lathis, bhalfas and pharsas came to the Palani and began to demolish the same.
1 ordered that the Palani should be set on fire.
The facts leading up to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows There was a dispute between the parties as to title to plot No.
The officer in charge of Gopalganj Police Station investigated the case and challaned the appellants charging them with having companymitted offences under Sections 435 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code.
435 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code and were tried by the Second Assistant Sessions Judge of Saran, Chapra, with the aid of a jury.
The Committing Court found a prima facie case made out against the appellants and sent them up for trial by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Second Court, Chapra, who tried them by a jury.
The appellant No.
Kailash Rai remonstrated and the deceased appellant No.
The said reference was heard by a Division Bench of that High Court.
The jury returned a majority verdict of guilty against the appellants.
1100 of village Rampur, Tengrahi.
The learned judges of the High Court overruled the companytentions which were urged before them in regard to the charge to the jury being defective and further held that the reference was, in the circumstances, number companypetent.
2 thereupon set fire to the Palani with a match stick and the appellant No.
An appeal had been filed by Kailash Rai against that decree and that appeal was pending at the date of the occurrence.
1 during the pendency of this appeal, were charged with having companymitted offences under ss.
One Kailash Rai claimed to be the owner of that plot and also claimed to be in possession of a Palani standing in a portion of that plot as also of a Punjaul, i.e., a haystack in its vicinity.
The first information report of this occurrence was lodged at Gopalganj Police Station at 8 p.m. the same night.
Bhagwati , J. The appellants Nos.
2 and 3, who are the surviving appellants after the death of appellant No.
A decree had been passed on December 16, 1950, in that title suit dismissing the claim of Kailash Rai.
