ORDER
Agarwala, C.J.
1. The petitioner Ghutar has been convicted under Section 326, Penal Code and his sou, the petitioner Sudia, under Sections 323 and 379. The convictions are assailed on the ground of misjoinder of charges. The facts are that the complainant Yaidyanath Jha saw Sudia and his brother Karia cutting the gram crop in his field. On Vaidyauath protesting Karia ran away in one direction and Sudia in another direction. Vaidyanath followed Sudia and caught him and then took him towards the village. When they naarad the house of Sudia the latter’s father and brother emerged, the former armed with a garasa and the latter with a stick. They demanded that Yaidyanath release Sudia. On his refusal Ghutar assaulted him with a garasa and Karia with a stick, with the result that be fell. Thereupon he was still further assaulted by Karia and Sudia. Later, he was removed to hospital and a first information was laid. It is quite obvious that the offence of theft was quite separate from the offences under Sections 323 and 326 and should not have been tried together. The convictions and sentences must, therefore, be set aside. The petitioners must now be retried separately, that is to say, Sudia must be tried on the charge under Section 379 by himself and must be retried separately on the charge of
assault with his father Ghutar, Sudia under
Section 323 and Ghutar under Section 326.
