SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri P.L. Singla, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi found the appellants guilty Under Section 325/34 Indian Penal Code as Well as Under Section 324/34 Indian Penal Code the conclusions arrived at by him were that the appellants had caused grievous hurt on the right wrist of Kanhaiya Lal Public Witness 1 and had also caused hurt on Batto and Chanderwati Public Witness s. 3 and 4. They were also convicted under Section 323/34 Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to Kanhaiya Lal and Chanderwati Public Witness s. 1 to 4. After finding the acc-used guilty and convicting them for the aforesaid offences Charne and Ajit Singh appellants who. were found to be under 21 years age and first offenders were ordered to be released on probation of good conduct on their entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 with one surety each in the similar amount to appear ana receive the sentence when called upon during the period of one year and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. Appellant Mir Singh was refused the benefit of PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 325/ 34, to rigorous imprisonment for six months' under Section; 324/34 and to rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323/34 Indian Penal Code All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence all the three appellants have preferred this appeal. The State has also moved an acquittal appeal No. 368/76 (State v. Mir Singh and others) on the ground that after having charged the accused under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not apply his mind as to whether the offence under Section 307/34 is made out or not. This has been treated as accquittal of the accused under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code as a result of which the State was obliged to file a counter appeal.

(3.) We may make a reference, though, briefly, to the facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants. These have been unforded by Public Witness 4 Chanderwati. The facts are that on 22nd September 1973, when Chanderwati was guarding the crop in her field the appellant Charan Singh alias Charne drove his she-buffaloos into the said fields. On the refusal of Charan Singh to drive them out of the field Chanderwati herself drove them out. This is said to have provoked Charan Singh who abused Chanderwati and then left the scene. Within next 15/20 minutes, while Chanderwati was. returning to her house and reached near the turning of her Gali. all the three appellants. armed with lathis and knife appeared on the site and at .the asking. of Mir Singh appellant "ISKO MAZA CHAKHA DO" the accused Charan gingh gave a lathi blow on her leg, Mir Singh also charged her leg with lathi. Ajit Singh, who was armed with knife, gave two knife blows on the calf of her left leg. At this stage, her son Public Witness 2 Dev Singh who was coming out of his house also raised an alarm which attracted Ghanderwati's husband, Kanhaiya, her daughter Batto and her mother-in-law Samli together with one Manohar Lal and Bhagwat who were sitting in their house. They came to rescue Chanderwati but immediately on their arrival Ajit Singh appellant, who was armed with knife, gave- knife blows on the head, back and the calf of Kanhaiya. Mir Singh and Charne appellants, who were armed with lathis charged Kanhaiya with lathis and struck him on his head, back and, leg. While this was going on the appellant Mir Singh is said to have exhorted the other appellants in these words "ISKO KHATAMKAR DO". As a result of this beating, Kanhaiya bleeder and fell unconscious. Batto, another victim, raised alarm and Mir Singh appellant again exhorted the other appellants saying "IS SALI KO BHI MAZA CHAKHA DO" and simultaneously he inflicted lathi blows on her leg. Charne appellant also charged her with lathi Whle Ajit Singh appellant gave knife blow on the abdomen of Batto. Thereafter, the accused are said to have escaped from the scene of occurrence. At the time of incident Batto was carrying a baby in her womb.