ORDER Petitioners have been convicted under section 341, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs.5 and in default to simple imprisonment for one week each. The charge against the petitioners is that they wrongfully restrained the Harijan Christians from taking the corpse of the mother of P.W.1 Gnanathickam to the burial ground by obstructing them at the junction of the North Street and Vilangudi Road. The contention of the petitioners is that the Harijans have a customary path to take the corpse to the burial ground. Both the Courts below found that the Harijans had a right to take their corpse along the public road and convicted the petitioners under section 341, Indian Penal Code. Every citizen has a right to use a public road in a lawful manner. Thus in Sundareswara Srauthigal, In re1 it was held: “All members of the public have equal rights in public streets vested in a Municipality, and one section of the community cannot interdict another section of the community from the lawful use of the public streets.” In Shanmugha Pandaram v. Ponnuswami Ayyar2 Horwill, J., observed: “There can be no doubt that the Adi Dravidas have a civil right to take a procession along all public streets just as any other person may have: whereas the caste residents have no right at all to object.” The learned Advocate for the petitioners relied on the decision in Veerabadra Chettiar v. E.V. Ramaswami Naiker3 where it was observed as follows: “Courts have got to be very circumspect in such matters and to pay due regard to the feelings and religious emotions of different classes of persons with different beliefs, irrespective of the consideration whether or not they share those beliefs, or whether they are rational or otherwise, in the opinion of the Court.” The above observations were made with reference to section 295, Indian Penal Code and can have no application to the user of a public road by a section of the community. The Courts below have accepted the plea of the Harijans that they had no intention to wound the religious feelings of the Hindu community. The fact that the petitioners, who belong to the Hindu community, obstructed only the corpse being taken along the road and not the Harijans is really no defence. The Courts below have accepted the plea of the Harijans that they had no intention to wound the religious feelings of the Hindu community. The fact that the petitioners, who belong to the Hindu community, obstructed only the corpse being taken along the road and not the Harijans is really no defence. In a Bench decision of this Court in Gopal Reddi v. Lakshmi Reddi1 it was held: “The voluntary obstruction of a vehicle in which persons are travelling amounts to wrongful restraint of the persons in the vehicle within the meaning of section 339 of the Indian Penal Code.” In Abraham v. King2 Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. has given a specific illustration of the obstruction of a procession carrying a corpse to the cremation ground and pointed out that it would not be a valid defence to plead that the obstruction caused was only to the carrying of the corpse and not to the persons who carry it. The learned Advocate for the petitioners relied on the Exception to section 339’ Indian Penal Code in support of his contention that the petitioners had acted in good faith believing that they had a lawful right to obstruct. The Court below have negatived the bona fides of the petitioners. Further, the Exception to section 339, Indian Penal Code relied on by the learned Advocate for the petitioners refers only to the obstruction of a ‘private way’ over land or water which a person In good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and there is no reference to a ‘public pathway. ‘In fact, the Harijan residents of the village have a right under Article 19(1) (d)of the Constitution to move freely on the public roads in India and use every public road. The conviction of the petitioners under section 341, Indian Penal Code, is therefore correct and the sentence of fine cannot be considered to be excessive. The Criminal Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. V.S.-----Petition dismissed.