JUDGMENT The appellant Raghbir Singh alias Raghu, a youngman of 25 years of age, had appealed to this Court against this conviction under S. 323, Penal Code, for voluntarily causing hurt to Prem Singh, under S. 323/34, Penal Code, for voluntarily causing hurt to Uttam Chand and under S. 426/34, I. P.C. for committing mischief, and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months, two months and one month respectively, all sentences to run concurrently. 2. The story as unfolded by the prosecution witnesses, and which has not been challenged on the merits before me on appeal, betraying as it does, recklessly antisocial behaviour on the part on the appellant, is that on 29-11-1963 at about 1 P. M., in bazaar Nabi Karim, Pahar Ganj, Delhi, the appellant along with his companion Ram Singh indulged in a drunken brawl and both of them went about in the bazaar throwing soda water bottles and stones indiscriminately in all directions. The first victim of their rowdyism was Uttam Chand, A Halwai at Nabi Karim who was innocently and peacefully busy cleaning his karahi in his shop. Uttam Chand was hit on the back of his head by a stone thrown in his shop either by Raghbir Singh or by his companion Ram Singh. Another shopkeeper Munshi Ram, a tailor, who was working in Nabi Karim, suffered at the hands of the aggressive anti-social behaviour of the appellant and his companion. Some soda-water bottles thrown by the accused fell in his shop and one stone missile hit the handle of his sewing machine, thereby damaging it. The accused and his companion then picked up some soda-water bottles from the shop of Prem Singh, who had given no offence to these persons, and on whose resistance, he was caught hold of by Ram Singh. The appellant removed a boiling kettle from the oven in Prem Singh's shop and poured boiling water on Prem Singh's back. Still another innocent citizen Jiwan Dass, whom Ram Singh met in the street, was felled on the ground by him. As soon as information of this occurrence reached A. S. I. Jai Dayal of Pahar Gunj Police Station, he rushed to the spot with four constables and found the shopkeepers in the locality closing their shops out of fear, and indeed they were stated to be running in various directions terrified by the behaviour of the appellant and his companion. As soon as information of this occurrence reached A. S. I. Jai Dayal of Pahar Gunj Police Station, he rushed to the spot with four constables and found the shopkeepers in the locality closing their shops out of fear, and indeed they were stated to be running in various directions terrified by the behaviour of the appellant and his companion. They were both arrested and police pickets were posted at the strategic points in the locality with the object of restoring confidence among the shopkeepers. This is the broad story disclosed by the prosecution witnesses in Court, but I need not enter into its details because the learned counsel for the appellant has not questioned the trustworthiness of the witnesses and had not even touched the order appealed from upholding the guilt of the appellant. The only question which the learned counsel has addressed me on is, the question of sentence, and, his submission is very brief. According to him, Ram Singh, the companion of the appellant, was tried earlier because the appellant was stated to be in custody under preventive detention. The observation of the Court below that both Raghu and Ram Singh were notorious bad characters has not been questioned by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Ram Singh, it is stated at the bar, was sentenced only to three months' rigorous imprisonment and there was no appeal by the prosecution for enhancement of his sentence, on this basis, it is urged by Shri Shiv Charan Singh, the learned Advocate for the appellant, that his client's sentence should be reduced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. My attention hag not been drawn to the judgment in Ram Singh's case and I am not aware as to what was the sentence imposed on him and what was the finding on the basis on which he was sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. Nothing has been said at the bar as to whether there was any fine imposed on him and I am not in a position to form any opinion as to what was the offence which was held proved against Ram Singh and what was the sentence imposed on him and for what reasons. Nothing has been said at the bar as to whether there was any fine imposed on him and I am not in a position to form any opinion as to what was the offence which was held proved against Ram Singh and what was the sentence imposed on him and for what reasons. The behaviour of the appellant was, in my opinion, so shocking and the recklessness with which he went about displaying his assumed omnipotence overawing and causing hurt to innocent persons is so utterly inexcusable, that I find it extremely difficult to take a lenient view of his acts. According to the finding of the Court below, he and his companion were dead drunk and they were going about in the bazaar in a drunkard condition throwing about soda-water bottles and stones in a spirit of bravado with the object of exhibiting their strength to the residents of that locality. No civilised society can brook this kind of riotous behaviour and gratuitous infliction of physical injury on innocent peace-abiding citizens quietly working in their shops. The house and shop of every citizen in this Republic is almost like a castle in which he is entitled to full protection against illegal intrusion and any encroachment on this right must be put down by the State with a firm hand. In a civilised egalitarian society, particularly one the constitution of which is based on democratic principles governed by Rule of Law, it is axiomatic that no citizen can claim greater liberty than what he accedes to others. Now if everyone were to profess to exercise the kind of liberty which the appellant before me has asserted for himself, then it would mean a death knell to the civilised society and the law of the jungle and violence alone would prevail in this Republic. It is obvious that such a situation cannot be countenanced by a civilised society, and certainly not by this Court. I am not unmindful of the fact that the appellant is in the prime of youth and he was dead-drunk at the time of the occurrence, but that by itself can be no defence. There is nothing on the record to disclose the circumstances in which he got drunk. I am not unmindful of the fact that the appellant is in the prime of youth and he was dead-drunk at the time of the occurrence, but that by itself can be no defence. There is nothing on the record to disclose the circumstances in which he got drunk. The question of sentence is always a delicate matter, but in the case in hand, it is more so because I am inclined to think that the fault is, to a large extent, due to the social conditions and our system of education. But be that as it may, this Court has to judiciously consider all the circumstances and impose sentence which must effectively impress on the accused that this kind of conduct does not pay and it should also serve as a warning to other like-minded persons. Public is entitled to be protected against people who deliberately ignore the rules of civilised and decent behaviour. I am not unmindful of the fact that jail life in our country is not an ideal life and though steps are being taken to educate young men like the appellant, still a lot remains to be done to reach a satisfactory stage where such persons can be adequately educated and reformed. It is hoped that the jail authorities would suitably impress upon the appellant that the kind of conduct, he has been held guilty of, is harmful from every point of view, including his own benefit. 3. It was represented to me by the learned counsel for the appellant that his client had served out only a couple of days because he was convicted on 11-7-1967 and was ordered by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 14-7-1967 to be released on bail, after furnishing a bail bond with one surety in the amount of Rs. 2000/-. The counsel assumed that his client must have been released on bail. From the office noting, however, I find that till 16-9-1967, the appellant had not been released on bail, with the result that the sentence being short, it was considered desirable to fix this appeal for hearing at an early date. I am not sure if the accused is now on bail or in custody. But if he has already been released on bail, he must surrender to his bail bond to serve out the remaining sentence. 4. I am not sure if the accused is now on bail or in custody. But if he has already been released on bail, he must surrender to his bail bond to serve out the remaining sentence. 4. The appeal, for the reasons foregoing, is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.