JUDGMENT

Dalal, J. - It is difficult to understand the arguments of the two subordinate Courts. The applicant has been convicted of an offence u/s 336, I.P.C. The section runs as follows:

Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment.

2. What was alleged and found by the two subordinate Courts against the applicant was this. He was a pujari of a temple and left the temple at night in charge of a third person. While away from the temple he deliberately threw bricks at the temple hoping that the Hindus would believe that the bricks came from the Mahomedan quarter and that thereby the Hindus would be enraged against the Mahomedans and there would be a riot between the Hindus and Mahomedans. The applicant is held to have done that deliberately and not rashly or negligently. A rash act is primarily an overhasty act and is opposed to a deliberate act. Even if it is partly deliberate, it is done without due thought and caution. Here there' is no question of want of thought or want of caution. The applicant desired a certain result to follow from the throwing of bricks and he deliberately threw the