Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Ramakudumban and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Chennai Decided Nov 16, 1949
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/791208

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revn. Case No. 106 and Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 103 of 1949
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 159

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Ramakudumban and ors.

Advocate J.S. Vedamanickam, Adv.;Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 159
Cases Referred
Rami Reddi v. Narasa Reddi
Reported In
AIR1950Mad408

Excerpt

- orderpachapakesa ayyar, j.1. the three petitioners have been convicted under section 160, penal code, of affray, and sentenced by the first class bench, tenkasi, to pay fines of rs 5/- each, or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three days each. the facts are simple. at 1.30 p.m. on 15th july 1948 the petitioners beat in a public place one masilamani, a washerman, who tamely submitted to the beating without the least retaliation, and simply howled in pain. mr. vedamanickam for the petitioners, relies on the wording of section 160, penal code and on the ruling of pandrang row j. in rami reddi v. narasa reddi, a. i. r. 1938 mad. 924 : (1938) cri. l. j. 86 and urges that the petitioners ought not to have been convicted under section 160, penal code as there was no fight, so essential to an affray, which is only a 'little war', whatever the case might have been if the petitioners had been charged under section. 352 or 323, penal code. i agree. a war and an affray both require two sides fighting. passive submission to beating by the other side will not do. nor will mere howling in pain do. an answering challenge or war cry or even an active non-violent resistance might have done. he never resisted back violently or non-violently. this washerman was incapable of that. i, therefore, set aside the convictions and sentences of the petitioners, acquit them, and direct the fines to be refunded to them. i consider a retrial of the petitioners for an offence under section 352 or section 323, penal code in this petty case unnecessary.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Pachapakesa Ayyar, J.

1. The three petitioners have been convicted under Section 160, Penal Code, of affray, and sentenced by the First Class Bench, Tenkasi, to pay fines of RS 5/- each, or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three days each. The facts are simple. At 1.30 P.M. on 15th July 1948 the petitioners beat in a public place one Masilamani, a washerman, who tamely submitted to the beating without the least retaliation, and simply howled in pain. Mr. Vedamanickam for the petitioners, relies on the wording of Section 160, Penal Code and on the ruling of Pandrang Row J. in Rami Reddi v. Narasa Reddi, A. I. R. 1938 Mad. 924 : (1938) Cri. L. J. 86 and urges that the petitioners ought not to have been convicted under Section 160, Penal Code as there was no fight, so essential to an affray, which is only a 'little war', whatever the case might have been if the petitioners had been charged under Section. 352 or 323, Penal Code. I agree. A war and an affray both require two sides fighting. Passive submission to beating by the other side will not do. Nor will mere howling in pain do. An answering challenge or war cry or even an active non-violent resistance might have done. He never resisted back violently or non-violently. This washerman was incapable of that. I, therefore, set aside the convictions and sentences of the petitioners, acquit them, and direct the fines to be refunded to them. I consider a retrial of the petitioners for an offence under Section 352 or Section 323, Penal Code in this petty case unnecessary.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial