In Re: Vyapuri Chetty and ors.

penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 141 - conviction for rioting--finding that two of five persons convicted had no common object--effect of, on the other accused. - - fifteen persons were complained against but only the petitioners, accused nos.ordermunro, j.1. the facts found are that one murugasami died, that his uncle, the 1st accused and cousins, the 2nd and 3rd accused, were in his house when he died, that some days afterwards these accused and others went to a land which had belonged to the deceased and cut the crop, that p.w. no. 2, father of murugasami's widow hearing of this went with others to the land and remonstrated and attempted to reap the crop themselves, upon which the 1st accused pushed p.w. no. 3, and snatched a bill-book from him. on these facts the five prisoners were convicted of rioting.2. accused nos. 1 to 3 claimed that they were entitled to the land as they and the decease had been members of an undivided family. no division is proved, but the finding is that for some thirty years the accused has been in exclusive possession. fifteen persons were complained against but only the petitioners, accused nos. 1 to 3, 14 and 15, were found guilty of rioting. before the five petitioners, could be found guilty of rioting it was necessary in this case to find that they all had one of the common object specified in section 141, indian penal code. the 14th and 15th accused were servants of the deceased and there is nothing to show that they had any of such objects in going to the field with accused nos. 1 to 3 who, they knew, were close relatives of the deceased. all the magistrate finds regarding them is that they called coolies to cut the crop. accused nos. 1 to 3 may have had a common object but before there can be an unlawful assembly and rioting, there must be five persons who have a common object. the conviction and sentence are reversed and the fine, if paid, will be refunded.