JUDGMENT S. Malik, J. - Sunder, his two brothers Sobaran and Umrai and Umrai's son Jhandu have come up in appeal against the judgment dated 8-7-1967, passed by Shri Basudeo Lal Srivastava, Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, convicting them Under Sections 302, 325 and 323 IPC each read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for life u/s 302 IPC, to three years' rigorous imprisonment u/s 325 IPC and to one year's rigorous imprisonment u/s 323 IPC concurrently. Curiously enough he has sentenced the Appellants both Under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC in respect of the grievous and simple injuries inflicted on PW 4 Sita Ram in furtherance of their common intention. It was not necessary for the learned Sessions Judge to have separately charged the accused also for the simple injuries caused to PW 4 Sita Ram after he had charged them u/s 325 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. It is not in dispute that the incident in question took place on 22-11-1966 near the field of the deceased, Sheo Deo and his brother PW 4 Sita Ram between 9.00 and 10.00 in the morning, at a distance of about 1 1/2 miles from the police station, in village and police circle Paraur. All the Appellants are also residents of village Paraur like Sita Ram. During the incident both Sheo Deo and Sita Ram were beaten with lathis due to which both became senseless. They were carried to the police station where the FIR was lodged by Makhanna, daughter of Sita Ram, the same day at about 11 A.M. 3. From the police station both Sheo Deo and Sita Ram were sent to Jalalabad Dispensary where they were medically examined at 9 P.M. and 9.25 P.M. respectively the same day by Dr. N.K. Khanna. Both continued to be unconscious and were sent from there to the District Hospital, Shahjahanpur. Sheo Deo later died during that very night, while Sita Ram remained unconscious for a number of days and then recovered. Sita Ram was x-rayed and it was found that he had sustained fracture of the right parietal bone and also fracture of the fibula bone near its lower end in the right leg. Sheo Deo had received five antemortem injuries of which four were contused wounds and one was an abrasion. Three of the contused wounds were on the head. Sita Ram was x-rayed and it was found that he had sustained fracture of the right parietal bone and also fracture of the fibula bone near its lower end in the right leg. Sheo Deo had received five antemortem injuries of which four were contused wounds and one was an abrasion. Three of the contused wounds were on the head. Internal examination revealed that he had sustained a depressed fracture in the skull besides a fracture near the base of the skull. Under the depressed fracture membranes had ruptured and the brain underneath had become lacerated and compressed. The injuries of Sheo Deo obviously were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The head injuries support the prosecution case that both Sita Ram and Sheo Deo became unconscious on receiving the injuries. 4. It is also not in dispute that during the incident Appellant Sunder received injuries due to a lathi having been wielded by deceased Sheo Deo. These injuries have been proved by DW 1 Dr. S.P. Banerji who examined Sunder in jail on 24-11-1966 at 10.50 A.M. Though he described the injuries as five in number, it appears that actually there were four injuries all contusions. The injury which the doctor described as No. 2 appears to have been a swelling resulting from injury No. 1. Injury No. 1 was found to be grievous because due to that injury the lower tip of the fibula bone in the right leg had fractured. The rest of the injuries were simple. As is apparent from the cross-examination of Dr. Banerji, he could not deny the prosecution suggestion that inspite of this injury the Appellant could have limped away at a fast rate while the injury was still fresh. This question obviously was put to show that due to the said fracture sustained by Sunder the prosecution case that the Appellants had run away from the place of the occurrence, could not be doubted. None of the other Appellants received any injury. 5. According to the prosecution, while Sheo Deo and Sita Ram along with Makhanna were levelling their field by Patela at the place of the occurrence they noticed Daya Ram, a boy aged about 12 years, son of Appellant Sunder plucking ears of corn in the Junchari field of the deceased and Sita Ram and keeping them in a bag. 5. According to the prosecution, while Sheo Deo and Sita Ram along with Makhanna were levelling their field by Patela at the place of the occurrence they noticed Daya Ram, a boy aged about 12 years, son of Appellant Sunder plucking ears of corn in the Junchari field of the deceased and Sita Ram and keeping them in a bag. Sheo Deo and Sita Ram quietly went to the Jundhari field, caught Daya Ram and brought him to the field which they were levelling and asked him to wait on the Mend. Their intention was to take Daya Ram to the police station with the stolen crop, after they had finished levelling the field. About half an hour after they caught Daya Ram, the four Appellants armed with lathis came there and straightaway attacked Sheo Deo and Sita Ram. Sheo Deo picked up a lathi which was lying nearby, wielded it in self defence and was able to inflict a few injuries on Sunder. Sheo Deo and Sita Ram, however, could not defend themselves and both fell down unconscious in the adjoining field near the boundary. When the villagers including PW 3 Din Dayal, PW 5 Ram Bharosey and PW 6 Subedar came there, the Appellants escaped leaving Sheo Deo and Sita Ram senseless. They also took away with them Daya Ram. 6. According to the defence, on the other hand, Daya Ram was grazing some buffaloes near the field which was being levelled by the deceased and Sita Ram, Deceased Sheo Deo ordered Daya Ram to remove the buffaloes from there. Daya Ram refused and there ensued exchange of abuse between the two. In the meantime, Sunder reached and rebuked Sheo Deo for assaulting his son. Thereupon Sheo Deo armed with a lathi and Sita Ram armed With a Panethi (a small stick used for driving bullocks while ploughing or levelling a field) started beating Sunder. Daya Ram started throwing brickbats, while Sunder wielded his lathi in self defence. All the three, namely, Sheo Deo, Sita Ram and Sunder fell down unconscious due to the injuries they received in the fight. Appellant Sobaran came and carried away Sunder to the police station in order to lodge a report but the police took both of them in custody and refused to take down their report. But for Sunder the other Appellants denied to have taken any part in the incident. Appellant Sobaran came and carried away Sunder to the police station in order to lodge a report but the police took both of them in custody and refused to take down their report. But for Sunder the other Appellants denied to have taken any part in the incident. To prove the defence version the Appellants examined in their defence DW 2 Ram Swarup. 7. We were taken through the entire evidence by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. The prosecution examined as eye-witness PVV 2 Makhanna, the daughter of PW 4 Sita Ram injured and three witnesses of the village, namely, Din Dayal, Ram Bharose and Subedar. Makhanna and Sita Ram narrated the entire prosecution case. Din Dayal, Ram Bharose and Subedar reached the spot hearing the shouts and fully corroborated Makhanna and Sita Ram as regards the beating given by the four Appellants to Sheo Deo and Sita Ram with lathis. Din Dayal, Ram Bharose and Sita Ram explained how they reached the place of the occurrence. But for some minor contradictions, which only go to show that the witnesses did not come forward to make a tutored statement, no material contradiction could be brought to our notice due to which the prosecution witnesses could be disbelieved. We find nothing unusual in Makhanna accompanying her father and uncle to help them in levelling the field. In villages, girls generally help the menfolk in the fields. As observed by the learned Sessions Judge, Din Dayal, Ram Bharose and Sita Ram appear to be independent witnesses and there is nothing on the record to snow that they had any motive to falsely implicate any of the Appellants. Moreover, the medical evidence on the record supports the oral evidence regarding the approximate time of the incident, the weapons used and also other prosecution allegations regarding Sita Ram and Sheo Deo having become senseless. 8. It is also apparent that the FIR was lodged without unreasonable delay and in the FIR the material details of the occurrence were narrated by Makhanna. 9. The defence version was rightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. Sunder in his statement before the Committing Magistrate merely stated that seeing Sheo Deo beating Daya Ram, he asked Sheo Deo not to beat. Thereupon Sheo Deo and Sita Ram both armed with lathis beat him and he in self-defence also wielded his lathi. 9. The defence version was rightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. Sunder in his statement before the Committing Magistrate merely stated that seeing Sheo Deo beating Daya Ram, he asked Sheo Deo not to beat. Thereupon Sheo Deo and Sita Ram both armed with lathis beat him and he in self-defence also wielded his lathi. The defence version was gradually developed and improved upon keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case to make it more probable. It was gradually introduced, in view of the larger and more serious injuries found on Sita Ram and Sheo Deo, that Sheo Deo alone wielded a lathi and Sita Ram merely had a small stick and that Daya Ram, a young lad of 12 years, threw brickbats with such force that they caused serious injuries to Sheo Deo. It was also introduced subsequently that Daya Ram was beaten as he refused to remove some buffaloes which he had taken to graze near the place of the occurrence. DW 2 Ram Swarup obviously was produced to narrate the concocted story, gradually developed by the defence. Had the defence version been true and the police acted in such a highhanded manner, the members of the Appellants' family and friends would definitely have reported the matter to the higher-authorities. 10. We are satisfied on considering the entire evidence on the record that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the incident took place as alleged by it. 11. The main argument advanced on behalf of the Appellants was that assuming the prosecution version to be true, it could not be said that the Appellants were the aggressors as the Appellants had a right to use force to get released Daya Ram from the clutches of Sheo Deo and Sita Ram, who, in view of Section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were guilty of an offence of wrongful confinement within the meaning of Section 340 IPC, as they had no justification in detaining Daya Ram against his wish for about half an hour without handing him over to the police with promptitude. It was pointed out that because Daya Ram was found committing a cognizable offence of theft of the ears of corn, Sita Ram and Sheo Deo could have arrested him but as laid down in Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure they had no right to detain Daya Ram for about half an hour at the place of the occurrence, without taking him to the police station or handing him over to the police. It was urged that the words "without unnecessary delay" appearing in Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure make it clear that it was incumbent on Sita Ram and Sheo Deo to take Daya Ram to a police, officer or to the nearest police station straightaway after they had arrested him. But instead of taking him to the police station forthwith they detained him for about half an hour. Such detention according to the Appellants amounts to "unnecessary delay" within the meaning of Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure which made Sheo Deo and Sita Ram guilty of an offence punishable u/s 342 of the IPC. In support of this view our attention was drawn to the observation made by the Patna High Court in Anant Prasad Ray v. Emperor 27 Cri LJ 1378. The learned Counsel went on to argue that as the detention of Daya Ram was illegal, the Appellants clearly had the right to rescue Daya Ram from the said illegal detention and to use force for that purpose. 12. We find that the above ruling is not applicable to the facts of the case before us. In the case decided by the Patna High Court the Petitioners were convicted u/s 342 of the IPC as it was found that while the person arrested by them, namely, Mohiuddin himself wanted that he be taken to the police station, the Petitioners along with others, who had caught Mohiuddin, refused to do so and instead forcibly took him to the Dharamshala, where he was rescued from the clutches of the mob by a Sub Inspector, who happened to be there on duty. In the Patna case the Petitioners did not arrest Mohiuddin in order to made him over to a police officer or to take him to the police station as required by Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure. In the Patna case the Petitioners did not arrest Mohiuddin in order to made him over to a police officer or to take him to the police station as required by Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure. On the other hand, it appears, that Mohiuddin was arrested in order to be handed over to the Arya Samaj and was actually taken to a Dharamshala for that purpose. 13. In the instant case, the prosecution has proved that Daya Ram was caught or arrested by Sita Ram and Sheo Deo in order to be taken to the police station and handed over there to the police. As Daya Rajm was found stealing ears of corn, he had clearly committed theft, which is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. When, therefore, Sita Ram and Sheo Deo arrested Daya Ram while he was stealing the ears of corn, they clearly did so legally and acted under the provisions of Section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question which falls for determination is whether the fact that Sita Ram and Sheo Deo had detained Daya Ram at the place of the occurrence for about half an hour in order to be taken to the police station, after they had finished the remaining levelling of their field amounted to "unnecessary delay" within the meaning of Section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. In order to appreciate the controversy it is necessary to quote the material words of Section 59(i) which run as under: Any private person may arrest any person who in his view commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence...and without unnecessary delay, shall make over any person so arrested to a police officer, or in the absence of a police officer, take such person or cause him to be taken in custody to the nearest police station. 15. It was argued on behalf of the Appellants that the words "unnecessary delay" appearing in Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure refer only to the time found requisite to take the arrested person to the police station or to otherwise make him over to a police officer. 15. It was argued on behalf of the Appellants that the words "unnecessary delay" appearing in Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure refer only to the time found requisite to take the arrested person to the police station or to otherwise make him over to a police officer. Thus according to the learned Counsel for the Appellants, after a person has been arrested under the provisions of Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure, those who make the arrest should at once make him over to a police officer and if no police officer is available in the neighbourhood, the arrested person should be taken to the nearest police station straightaway and handed over to the police there. We are unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the defence on this point. The use of the words "unnecessary delay" in Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that the law does not make it incumbent upon the person who makes the arrest, to take the arrested person to the police station or to make him over to a police officer straightaway or immediately after effecting the arrest if there are reasonable grounds for some delay. The section in our view permits the person who makes the arrest to detain the arrested person for some time and postpone his making over to a police officer or taking him to the nearest police station, if the detention or postponement was not unduly long and was in the circumstances justifiable. Such detention or postponement would, in our judgment, be 'without unnecessary delay' within the meaning of Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure. For example, the residents of a village surrounded by forest, in which there are dangerous animals, arrest a thief after sunset. In order to take the thief to the nearest police station or the nearest police officer, the villagers shall have had to pass through a thick forest, which would have been dangerous to human life, during the night. The villagers, therefore, detailed the thief in their village and postponed taking him to the nearest police station till the next morning. In order to take the thief to the nearest police station or the nearest police officer, the villagers shall have had to pass through a thick forest, which would have been dangerous to human life, during the night. The villagers, therefore, detailed the thief in their village and postponed taking him to the nearest police station till the next morning. It could certainly not be said in such a case that inasmuch as the villagers did not take the thief straightaway to the police station, risking their own lives and that of the thief and instead detained him in the village during the night, there was "unnecessary delay" in making over the arrested person to a police officer or taking him to the nearest police station, within the meaning of Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. It must be remembered that though the right to arrest a person found committing a cognizable offence is given to a private person, the right is severely restricted by the legislature by providing that such person should be handed over to the police without unnecessary delay i.e. delay which was not unnecessary or was reasonable taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. It would be mistake to lay down a rigid or general definition of the words "unnecessary delay" appearing in Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. In support of the view propounded by us, we find that at p. 622 of Vol. XI of the authoritative book 'Words and Phrases' (West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn.) the word 'delay' has been defined as 'to put off, postpone, defer' etc. In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. I also the word 'delay' has been defined likewise. In the same Dictionary (Vol. IV) the word 'unnecessary' means 'not necessary or requisite or needless'. It may, therefore, be broadly stated that those acts are 'necessary' the doing of which is reasonably required or needed. Therefore the words 'unnecessary delay' appearing in Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure clearly show that the person who makes an arrest under the provisions of Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure is permitted to postpone or to put off or to defer taking the arrested person to the nearest police station or making him over to a police officer, provided such delay is found to have been not unnecessary. 18. 18. As stated above, in order to answer the question whether there has been 'unnecessary delay' the Court shall have to take into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of each particular case. 19. The question which arises, therefore, is whether Sita Ram and Sheo Deo by postponing to take Daya Ram to the police station till they had finished levelling of their plot committed 'unnecessary delay' within the meaning of Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure. At the risk of repetition it may be mentioned that Daya Ram was caught by Sita Ram and Sheo Deo while he was stealing the ears of corn, with the intention of handing him over to the police. It was not the intention of Sita Ram or Sheo Deo to panalise Daya Ram by detaining him for good, nor was Daya Ram arrested by them with the intention of keeping him under confinement. Sita Ram and Sheo Deo had merely deferred or postponed taking away Daya Ram to the police station in order to enable them to finish the levelling of the plot, which they were then actually performing. 20. Levelling of a field by Patela is done with the help of a pair of bullocks who are made to pull a large flattish piece of wood over a ploughed field. It has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW 2 Km. Makhanna that in order to level a field Patela had to be applied twice. Before Daya Ram was caught, the Patela had already been applied once and it was being done for the second time. She further stated that the Appellants attacked Sita Ram and Sheo Deo about half an hour after Daya Ram was arrested. In her examination in chief Makhanna stated that Daya Ram was found committing theft of corns abut two hours after they went to the field and started levelling it. It, therefore, appears that they did not want to detain Daya Ram for an unreasonably long period and that they intended to start with him for the police station after finishing the levelling of their field, which work was nearing completion. If Daya Ram was taken to the police station as soon as he was arrested, it would have unnecessarily interfered with the work of levelling which Sita Ram and Sheo Deo were then actually doing and the work would have remained unfinished. 21. If Daya Ram was taken to the police station as soon as he was arrested, it would have unnecessarily interfered with the work of levelling which Sita Ram and Sheo Deo were then actually doing and the work would have remained unfinished. 21. Considering the fact that the incident took place at about 10 AM in the morning and that the finishing of the work of levelling was not going to take much time, it cannot be said that Daya Ram was detained unnecessarily or needlessly. In our view, Sita Ram and Sheo Deo did not commit 'unnecessary delay' within the meaning of Section 59 Code of Criminal Procedure. 22. The police station was only a mile and a half away and as there was no danger to the person of Daya Ram, we find that even if the Appellants thought that Daya Ram was being unlawfully detained, they could have gone to the police station and sought police help. They had absolutely no justification in taking law into their hands and attacking the deceased and Sita Ram with lathis and beating them in such a brutal manner. 23. The conviction and sentences of Sunder, Sobaran, Umrai and Jhandu Appellants Under Sections 302/34, 323/34 and 325/34 IPC are maintained and their appeal is dismissed. 24. All the Appellants are on bail. They will be taken into custody forth with to serve out their sentences, if they do not surrender to their bail bonds immediately.