HARDUTT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/convicts, who have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10.000.00 and in default S.I. for three months, and also as regards offence u/s. 307/34 Indian Penal Code all the appellants stand sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 each and in default S.I. for one month, and both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently in F.I.R. No. 252/85, P.S. Narela, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 100/96 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide his judgment and order dated 31.1,1994 assail the said conviction, and sentence in this appeal under Section 374(ii) Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal by the appellants/convicts, shortly stated, are that on 17.11.1985, S.I. Satya Prakash of police post Bawana, Delhi, was on patrol duty in the area of Village Harevali and reached the crossing of Auchandi Road and Harevali Road; that Hari Kishan, President of the Panchayat of Village Harevali met him and informed that some quarrel had taken place in the fields of village Harevali and some persons were lying in injured condition, whereupon S.LSatya Prakash, along with the patrolling party rushed to the field of Pawan and Mahender, sons of Ram Chander and found Gopi Chand and Mahender lying there in the injured condition; that while on way to the hospital taking injured Gopi Chand and Mahender, at the pond of Village Harevali, Pawan Kumar son of Ram Chander was also found lying in injured condition, who was also taken in the vehicle along with injured Gopi Chand and Mahender and all the three were taken to the Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi and admitted for treatment; that the statement of injured Pawan Kumar, was recorded vide 11X.PW-1/A, narrating the incident, implicating each of the accused Hardutt, Nanhe, Parkashi @ 0m Prakash and Roop Ram with the role attributed together with the weapons allegedly possessed in the occurrence by each of the assailani/ accused; that S.LSatya Prakash sent the rukka to P.S.Narela for registration of the case and accordingly, F.I.R. No. 252/85 was registered. Charge-sheet came to be fried against all the accused persons. Thereafter, charge u/s. 288 Cr.P.C. came to be framed for the offences alleged. On denial of the charge by the accused persons, the prosecution adduced oral as well as documentary evidence to substantiate the charge leveled against each of the accused persons. The learned trial Judge, appreriating the documentary as well as the oral evidence as also the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., held the charge proved against each of the accused persons and found each of the accused persons guilty and imposed the sentences, as aforestated. It is this finding of guilt/conviction and the imposition of sentences, which have been assailed by each of the convict/appellant in this appeal.

(3.) It is not in dispute that one Kali Ram happened to be the grand-father (mother's father) of Public Witness .1 and Public Witness .5 and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and father-in-law of accused No. 1, Hardutt; that the mother of PWs-1 & 5, Sharbati happened to be the sister of Murti, the mother of accused No. 2, 3 and 4 and the wife of accused No. 1; that Kali Ram had agricultural land at Village Harevali. According to the prosecution. Kali Ram had sold his share in the said agricultural land to Public Witness s. 1 and 5 for consideration of Rs. 30,000.00 and that there is dispute in connection with this agricultural land originally belonging to deceased Kali Ram between the complainant party and the accused persons.