Batisa Singh and Others vs Emperor

Macpherson, J.—This application in revision relates to the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 147 and 347, I. P.C., and their sentences, under the former section of two months rigorous imprisonment and under the latter of six month''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50, the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.

The facts established are that after nightfall when the complainant Ramphal Singh, an old man of 77 had gone outside his hamlet for purposes of nature and was returning home by the village lane which passes by the dhaba or veranda of Pancham Singh, the first five petitioners seized him and lifted him bodily on to the veranda, laid him down on the straw-strewn floor, Radha gagged him, Kapildeo said to the petitioner Barmeshwar "Light a lantern and take his thumb impression" and Keshari took his thumb impressions on no fewer than six pieces of papers and then they let him go. The common object set out in the charge u/s 147 was:

to wrongly confine Ramphal Singh, for the purpose of extorting thumb impression from him.

and the charge u/s 347 was of wrongly confining him:

for the purpose of extorting from him certain property, to wit, thumb impressions on certain blank pieces of papers which can be used as valuable securities.

Mr. S. Sinha in support of the rule urges: (1) that convictions under both the charges cannot be legal; (2) that Ramphal Singh being very short-sighted, the petitioners have not been adequately identified; (3) that the conviction u/s 347 is not sustainable on the facts in view of the definition of "valuable security"; and (4) that the sentence is severe, the offences being merely technical. As [to the first point, it is indisputable that separate convictions under Sections 147 and 347 are perfectly legal.

It may indeed well be that the aggregate sentences which could be passed, cannot be in excess of the sentence which can be passed for the offence which is the more heavily punishable under the Code, but that point manifestly does not arise in the case of the petitioners. As to the second point, the facts are not ordinarily open in revision; but, in any case, as the five petitioners had actually caught hold of Ramphal so that they were well within his range of vision and Rarmeshwar lit a lamp, there is ample evidence of identification of the petitioners apart from the corroboration afforded by the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses. This plea is unfounded. The third point also cannot prevail.

It is conceded that even if Section 347 does not apply, Section 342 is certainly applicable. Further, it might be argued that the word "extorting" is not employed in Sections 347 and 348 in the same sense as "extortion" as defined in Section 383. But in any case, it has been found as a fact that the petitioners intentionally put Ramphal Singh in fear of injury to himself and thereby dishonestly induced him to place his thumb impression upon certain pieces of paper, being in each case something signed which could be converted into a valuable security u/s 30, I. P.C., that is to say, into:

a document which is, or purports to be one whereby a legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right.

Now, in this province where a person places his thumb impression on a blank paper, the understanding between him and the person to whom he delivers the paper, ordinarily is that it is to be converted into a valuable security. A difference hardly ever arises between the parties on that point. The difference is nearly always as to the nature of the document which it was intended should be executed. As was indicated in Jawahir Thakur v. Emperor [1916] 38 All. 430 in regard to a document u/s 474, the affixing of a thumb impression to a paper is: "authority to the holder of the same to make the document into a valuable security."

The thumb impression is everywhere regarded as the signature of an illiterate man. In my opinion, the documents which were extorted from Ramphal Singh were "valuable securities" and the ingredients of Section 347 were present in the circumstances which have been found. Accordingly the conviction u/s 347 is correct. The sentence which is in the aggregate only six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50, is in my opinion, by no means severe.

The sentence u/s 347 would have been lenient even if the further offence of rioting had not been established. It is far from the reality to speak of the action of the petitioners as technical infringements of the law, and indeed so rife has the offence become in this province that in all such cases a deterrent sentence is indicated. Furthermore the sentence would not have been excessive even if the third point had succeeded and the conviction u/s 347 had to be altered to one u/s 342. The application is without merit and the rule is discharged. If Batisa Singh and Radha Singh are on bail, they should be directed to surrender forthwith to undergo the unexpired portions of their sentences.