JUDGEMENT : The appeal and revision arise out of the judgement in C.A. No. 230 of 1964 by the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore Division. The appellant is the complainant The revision petitioners are the accused.

2. The complainant filed A private complaint against the accused before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Erode, alleging that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and caused extensive damage and mischief to the water-pipes laid by the complainant for taking water from a channel to his lands, punishable under Ss. 148 and 430, I.P.C. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate convicted the accused under both the charges and sentenced each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 100 under S. 148, I.P.C find a fine of Rs. 50 under S. 430, I.P.C. On appeal, the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence under S. 430, I.P.C., but acquitted them under S. 148. I.P.C. Hence, the complainant preferred the appeal against the acquittal under Sec. 148, I.P.C. and the accused filed the revision petition against the order of the Sessions Judge confirming their conviction and sentence under S. 430, I.P.C.

3. So far as the revision petition is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to challenge the findings of the lower Court. Both the lower Courts accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and found that the accused were armed with deadly weapons and they broke the cement water-pipe belonging to the complainant. The accused have not claimed a right of private defence of property; but they denied the offence and contended that the case was foisted on them because of enmity. There is no substance in the revision petition. It is, therefore, dismissed.

4. As regards the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Sessions Judge who acquitted the accused under Sec. 148, I.P.C., had misconceived the definition of rioting. There appears to be substance in his contention. The learned Sessions Judge found that the accused were armed with deadly weapons like knife, hammer, crowbar and spade; but, however, he held that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to break open the pipe and cause damage to P.W. 1 and not to cause threat or bodily injury to P.W. 1 and further held that though the accused were armed with weapons of the nature mentioned above, they cannot be said to be deadly weapons as they were not intended to be used as weapons of offences and so the accused have not committed the offence of rioting much less rioting with deadly weapons. There is obviously an error in this finding. It is necessary to set out the relevant provisions in the Indian Penal Code which deal with unlawful assembly and rioting. "Unlawful assembly" is defined under Sec. 141, I.P.C., which is as follows :-

"An assembly of five or more persons is designated an 'unlawful assembly', if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is -

First - to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the unlawful power of such public servant; or

Second - to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or

Third - to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or

Fourth - by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, as to enforce any right or supposed right; or

Fifth - by means of a criminal force, or Show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to do what he is legally entitled to do ... ."

5. In this case, the common object of the accused has been found by both the Courts to commit mischief to the water-pipes which satisfies the third clause of S. 141, I.P.C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document