SATBIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the judgment and decree of learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 23.02.1998 in the case arising out of FIR No. 393/1994, Police Station Dabri, has been challenged. The appellant was convicted for having committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution allegations were that on a strip of land near the Pankha Road pavement between a "patri" and the "nala" (the drain), by the side of the road, buffaloes used to be tethered and cow dung was being prepared by the accused, including the appellant as well as the complainant Dhanpati, and her other family members. It is alleged that on 01.11.1994, Dhanpati went to prepare cow dung cakes at 10.00 am when she saw Satbir, Ranbir and Jailal. All of them were armed with a lath. Dhanpati was given a lath blow on the head by Satbir. When she cried aloud, Moola Ram, her father-in-law rushed to save her. Jailal, the co-accused then caught hold of him. The appellant gave Moola Ram a blow on the head. Dhanpati s brother-in-law, Sher Singh had, by then, reached there. He too was beaten by Satbir and Ranbir. Sher Singh received injuries on his head. Dhanpati s husband, Jagdish too reached there and was given lath blows. The prosecution had also divulged that one day prior to the incident, i.e. on 31.10.1994, Satbir s wife had insisted that she would tether her buffalos at the spot where Dhanpati used to prepare cow dung cakes, which led to quarrel between the two of them. The police registered the First Information Report (FIR) and conducted investigation after which the accused were charged with having committed offences under Section 302 IPC. They all denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution relied upon the testimonies of 13 witnesses and also produced several exhibits in support of this case. Upon consideration of the materials and evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the co-accused but convicted the present appellant Satbir.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the appellant, Sh. K.B. Andlay argued that at the outset, the essential facts, such as the quarrel, the attack and the nature of injuries inflicted upon the complainant party, and received by the accused were not in dispute. He stated that the facts were not in dispute and the appellant would be arguing for alteration of the conviction to one under Section 304. In order to substantiate his argument, the appellant s counsel relied upon the following findings: