Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : These two appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants and maintaining the convictions and sentences imposed on them by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut, under S. 147, S. 424, S. 452, S. 325, read with S. 149, and S. 323, read with S. 149, of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is as follows: One Har Narain had obtained a decree from the court of the Additional Munsif, Ghaziabad, against one Sunehri Jogi for a sum of money. In execution of that decree the Munsif issued a warrant for the attachment of the judgment-debtor s property. The amin to whom the said warrant was entrusted attached, inter alia, three buffaloes and two cows, which were in the house of the judgment-debtor, as his property. The amin kept the cattle in the custody of one Chhajju, the sapurdar. As the said sapurdar had no accommodation in his house for keeping the animals, he kept them for the night in the enclosure of the decree-holder with his permission. The next day, at about 7 a.m., the nine appellants, armed with lathies, went to the enclosure of the decree-holder and began to untie two of the attached buffaloes. The decree-holder, his son and his nephew protested against the acts of the appellants whereupon the appellants struck the three inmates of the house with lathies, and when P. W. 4 intervened, they struck him also with lathies. Thereafter, appellants 1, 2 and 3 took away the two -buffaloes followed by the other appellants.

3. The defence version is that on June 1, 1955, at about 7 a.m., the first appellant, Tika, was taking his two buffaloes for grazing when Har Narain and 11 others came with the amin and forcibly snatched the said buffaloes, that when Tika object to it, those 12 persons assaulted him with lathies, that when appellant 2, Raja Ram, came there, he was also assaulted, and that Tika and Raja Ram used their lathies in self-defence.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, on a consideration of the evidence, held that the cattle were attached on the evening of May 31, 1955, and that, after their seizure, they were kept in the house of Har Narain. The Sessions Judge disbelieved the defence version that the accused gave the beating to Har Narain and others at 11 a.m. on June 1, 1955, in self-defence. On that finding, he convicted the accused as aforesaid. On appeal ,the learned Judges of the High Court accepted the finding arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge and confirmed the convictions and the sentences passed by him on the accused, but directed the various sentences to run concurrently. Hence the appellants have preferred these two appeals against the judgment of the High Court.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants raised before us the following contentions : (1) The attachment of the buffaloes was illegal and, therefore, the appellants in taking away their own buffaloes from the possession of the decree-holder did not commit any offence under S. 424 of the Indian Penal Code. (2) Even if the attachment was valid, neither the amin had any authority to keep the attached buffaloes in the custody of the sapurdar, not the sapurdar had any power to keep them in the custody of the decree-holder, and therefore and decree-holder s possession was illegal and the appellants in taking away the buffaloes did not commit any offence within the meaning of S. 424 of the Indian Penal Code. (3) The appellants also did not commit any offence under S. 441 of the Indian Penal Code, as they had no intention to commit an offence or cause annoyance to the decree-holder, but they entered the house of the decree-holder only to recover their buffaloes from illegal custody. (4) The appellants did not commit an offence under S. 325, read with Ss. 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, as their common object was not to cause grievous hurt to the decree-holder and others, but was only to recover their buffaloes illegally det