The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the definition of rioting under Section 146 of I.P.C. and the related provisions of force and criminal force under Sections 348 and 350 of I.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA CHANDRA SINGH SAMANT, J.

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.12.2017, passed by the appellate Court by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, District-Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 2017, by which the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court dated 29.08.2017 in Criminal Case No. 833 of 2014 was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

2. The applicants were charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Sections 147, 294, 323 and 506 (Para-2) read with Section 149 of I.P.C. for which they were tried. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 29.08.2017 acquitted the applicants from the charges under Sections 294, 323 and 506 (Para-2) read with Section 149 of I.P.C. however all the applicants were convicted for offence under Section 147 of I.P.C. and sentenced only with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. The learned appellate Court has vide impugned judgment upheld the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned judgment and the judgment of the trial Court both are erroneous and against the facts, law and evidence of the case. The applicants were falsely implicated in the case which is fully concocted. The conviction under Section 147 of I.P.C. against the applicants cannot sustain as the applicants have been acquitted from the other charges under Section 294, 323 and 506 (Para-2) read with Section 149 of I.P.C. The essential ingredients of the offence of riot as defined in Section 146 of I.P.C. were not specifically proved by the prosecution.

4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Mariadasan and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1980 Cri. L.J. 412, in which it was held that the fight which started suddenly on the spur of the moment in a heat of passion, therefore, the accused persons could be liable only for the individual acts committed by them and there is no evidence to support the act of rioting. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has similarly held in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Jodha Singh and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1822. Hence, the applicants are entitled for acquittal in the case against them, hence, it is prayed that this revision petition be allowed and the impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the trial Court both may be set aside.

5. Learned State counsel appearing for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the prosecution has brought sufficient evidence for establishing the commission of offence by the applicants under Section 147 of I.P.C. therefore, the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court both have not committed any error in holding the applicants guilty under Section 147 of I.P.C. and sentencing them accordingly. Hence, the present revision petition is devoid of merits, which may be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the document present on record.

7. Considered on the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. Ex.P/1 is written complaint given by Meena Devi Nirmalkar (PW-1), in which it was alleged that on 03.01.2014, the applicant No. 1 had raised a turmoil in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat in the presence of all the Panch Members. Later on, the applicants came to the Government School Lofandi, where the Self-Help Group of Meena Devi Nirmalkar (PW-1) was cooking mid day meal on 21.01.2014. The applicants quarreled with the Meena Devi Nirmalkar (PW-1) and others by placing their claim that they should be allowed to cook the mid day meal. The numbered F.I.R. Ex.P/2 was lodged, on which basis, the case was investigated. In the Court statement Meena Devi Nirmalkar (PW-1) has stated that applicant No. 1 and others came to the spot, where the mid-day meal was being cooked and quarreled with her claiming that the applicants are persons ent