DAYANAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that accused Nos.1 and 2 as on 21.08.2007 at about 7.00 a.m. are said to have removed the fence around the land of Jagannath at Hattaga-S which is just outside the village and had entered the land apparently to ease themselves, at which time Mailari and his father Jagannath who were on the land objected to the said accused entering their land. It transpires that this argument that broke out between them had escalated into a major altercation. It transpires that accused Nos.3 to 5 who heard the commotion, also came there and it then transpires that the accused forming themselves into an unlawful assembly and having armed themselves with stones and with an intention to commit murder, accused No.2 is said to have hit Jagannath with a stone on the left side of his rib cage and caused injury, accused No.1 is said to have hit Jagannath with a stone on his left temporal region, causing a grievous bleeding injury and he had also bit the left thumb of PW-9 Mailari when he came to the rescue of Jagannath and caused a bleeding injury and also PW-10 was injured on his left eyebrow, causing a bleeding injury. Accused No.5 is said to have hit PW-9 on her right ear causing a bleeding injury. Accused No.3 is said to have instigated and goaded the other accused to commit the said acts and the accused are then said to have left the place. Jagannath who was seriously injured, had fallen to the ground and was found to have died on the spot. It then transpires that Jagannath was given up for dead and was taken home. Thereafter a complaint having been lodged by PW-9, the police had registered a case which was later numbered as C.C.No.654/2007 and thereafter the accused having been arrested and the matter having been committed to the Sessions Court. The case was split up, since accused Nos.4 and 5 could not be secured. Later the presence of accused Nos.4 and 5 having been secured, the Court below had framed charges, to which the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution having tendered evidence had examined PWs-1 to 20 and had marked several exhibits and material objects. On consideration of the same, the Court below had framed the following points for consideration:

(3.) The Court below answered points No.1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative and point No.3 partly affirmative and has convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 to rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 304 (II) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, accused No.4 was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, as an abettor, they were also required to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, each, towards the offence punishable under the aforesaid section. All the accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each for the offence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code as well as simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each for the offence punishable under Section 143 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. So also simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each for the offence punishable under Section 147 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The amount of fine in a sum of Rs.10,000/- was to be paid to the widow of the deceased by way of compensation. The accused were given set off for the period during which they were already in custody. It is this judgement, which is sought to be challenged in the present appeal.