GOKUL KANHAIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected appeals by special leave, Crl. A. 179 of 1969 being by five appellants and Crl. A. 180 of 1969 by one, arising out of one criminal trial, are directed against the judgment and order of the Rajasthan High Court dated April 9, 1969. Facts giving rise to these appeals may now be stated:

(2.) In the trial court all the accused, except Kanhaiya, judgment-debtor, had denied the prosecution story by merely pleading ignorance and Laxman had pleaded alibi and produced two witnesses in support thereof. Kanhaiya, appellant, had, to quote from the judgment of the trial court, "admitted that the Nazir and the police officials had come for the attachment and that he told them that he would not allow them to affect the attachment, whereupon they went away from the spot and he also went away to his other field. Then the police came and arrested him". The learned Sessions Judge convicted Kanhaiya, Mangal, Ramsahai, Dhanna, Sheodan, Prabhati, Gokul, Kalyan, Gulla and Deviram for offences under Ss. 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. They were further convicted under Ss. 332/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a year and half.

(3.) It is unnecessary for the purpose of the present appeals to refer to the conviction of the various accused persons for other offences as no specific point was sought to be made here with respect to those offences. All the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. All the accused were acquitted of the charge under S.307 and of the alternative charge under Ss. 307/149, I.P.C. It may be pointed out that the charge "under section 307 or S.307 read with S.149 I.P.C." was framed with respect to the injuries said to have been inflicted on Girraj. According to Dr. S. B. Mathur (P.W.5) out of the five injuries found on the person of Girraj, fracture of the left index finger was grievous whereas the remaining four injuries were simple, one of them being a more bruise. Considering the nature of these injuries charge under S.307 or S.307 read with S.149, I.P.C. was held unsustainable.