RASHID Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RASHID (the appellant) challenges the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 15.09.2000 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 116/98 arising out of FIR No. 431/98 PS Sultanpuri whereby he was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 304/324 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 19.09.2000, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine Rs. 1,000/ - under Section 304 IPC and RI for one year with fine Rs. 500/ - under Section 324 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) ALLEGATIONS against the appellant were that on 03.07.1998 at about 08.00 A.M. opposite Hanuman Mandir, P -4 Block, Sultanpuri, he and his associate Harish Kumar inflicted injuries to Anil Kumar, Ghanshyam and Dhani Ram. Dhani Ram succumbed to the injuries and post -mortem examination on the body was conducted. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the appellant and Harish Kumar for committing offences under Section 304/324/34 IPC. Vide order dated 01.02.1999, Harish was discharged. Charge under Section 304/324 IPC was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. In 313 statement, the appellant pleaded false implication and claimed that he was assaulted and injured by the complainant party when the people present at the spot did not permit them to forcibly draw water from the water tank. DW -1 (Rahmit Ullaha), DW -2 (Suraj Pal) and DW -3 (Chaman Lal) appeared in his defence. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment held Rashid guilty for the offences mentioned previously. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

(3.) IT is admitted position that dispute arose on 03.07.1998 at about 08.00 A.M. at the spot when PW -1 (Anil Kumar) had gone to fetch water from a water tank. It is also not denied that in the said quarrel, PW - 1 (Anil Kumar), PW -2 (Ghanshyam) and Dhani Ram sustained injuries. Appellants contention is that he was not the author of the injuries and these were inflicted by public persons preset at the water tank who had not allowed the complainant party to draw water from the water -tank out of turn and they wanted to get water on priority due to marriage in their family. Further contention of the appellant is that he also received injuries at the hands of the complainant party and was medically examined.