BANSILAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fir (Ex. P-1) lodged by injured namely Jitendra Bhadur Singh (PW-1) goes to show that on 07.07.1995 at about 6-7 AM when he along with Hetram @ Bhushud (PW-2) and one Pareshwar (not examined) the driver of the tractor were in the field for cultivating the land, the deceased/accused came there and started abusing to PW-2 saying as to on whose direction he was cultivating the land. When PW-2 asked the deceased/accused not to abuse, he caused injury to him with the club carried by him. While trying to ward off the attack of deceased/accused, PW-2 suffered injury on his thumb. FIR further goes to show that the present accused/appellants who were standing near by also attacked PW-1 and PW-2 with the club. Thereafter when PW-1 Jitendra tried to intervene in the matter he too was assaulted by the accused/appellants with club, as a result of which he became unconscious and was bleeding profusely. After sometime when PW-1 regained consciousness he saw all three accused/appellants getting away from the field. Thereafter they were taken to police station and then to hospital for treatment where their statements were recorded by the police. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellants and charges were framed against them under Sections 294, 506-B, 323/34 and 307/34 IPC.

(2.) After due appreciation of evidence of the witnesses, learned Court below convicted the accused/appellants under Sections 307/34, 323/34 and 506-II IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years under Section 307/34, RI for six months under Section 323/34 and RI for three years under Section 506(II) IPC by judgment impugned dated 23 February, 1999 passed in Special Case No. 272/96. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that the accused/appellants had rightfully objected to the complainant party from cultivating the land, which was in their possession and had obtained stay from the Revenue Board Gwalior and it is this which led to the incident. He further submits that apart from the interested witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, no independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution. He submits that the act of the accused/appellants was in exercise of their right of private defence while protecting their property which the complainant party was trying to cultivate. He further submits that the findings recorded by the Court below are not based on proper appreciation of the witnesses and, therefore, they are liable to be set aside.