THE QUEEN v. NANDUA et al

THE QUEEN  v. NANDUA et al.

D. C. Randy (Criminal) 828.

Riot-Voluntarily causing hurt-Ceylon Penal Code, s. 67.

When five or more people assemble with the object of beating a particular person, and do beat him, they are guilty both of riot and voluntarily causing hurt; but inasmuch as the act of riot is made up of the offences of unlawful assembly and voluntarily causing hurt, which was the object of the assembly

Held, that their case fell under section 67 of the Ceylon Penal Code, and that they should be punished for the principal offence of riot only.

Case of Muniwala v. Davitha, Civ. Min., 11th December, 1895, dis­approved .

THE facts of the case appear in the following judgment of the Supreme Court.

Dornhorst, for appellant.

Dias, C.C., for respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

31st December, 1895. Withers, J.

In this case nine persons were indicted before the District Judge of Kandy for the two offences, one of riot under 'Section 144, Ceylon Penal Code, and the other of voluntarily causing hurt to Spencer Walter Gane under section 314, Ceylon Penal

Code, at Holton estate, on the 27th day of August last. The District Judge found all the accused, except the third accused, guilty of both offences. The third accused, Yamanagedara Howadia, the District Judge has acquitted of both offences, and has discharged him.

The judgment was pronounced on the 3rd December, and the sentence awarded on the following day.

The first accused was sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence of rioting and to three months for voluntarily causing hurt.

The second accused to six months for rioting and to two months for voluntarily causing hurt.

The ninth accused to four months for rioting and to two months for voluntarily causing hurt.

The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth were on the second day found to be " constructively guilty under section 146 of volun­tarily causing hurt."

The District Judge thought it sufficient to pass one sentence on . them for the two offences. This really makes a third offence, for on the previous day he had convicted them of rioting and voluntarily causing hurt.

The sixth accused was sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment because he took a more prominent part than the fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth.

Mr. Dornhorst appeared for the accused appellant, and Mr. Crown Counsel Dias in support of the judgment.

At the close of the case I had no doubt in my own mind that most of the accused had been w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document