LAWS(ALL)-1980-4-25

PUKHAN Vs. STATE

Decided On April 07, 1980
PUKHAN Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUKHAN son of Gayasi a resident of village Banka Pahari, police station Gursarai, district Jhansi has been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to under go imprisonment for life for committing the murder of his brother Durga by assaulting him with a lathi. He has also been convicted under section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six monies for causing injury to another brother of his, Ghanshyam, with a lathi. The conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi by judgment dated September 8, 1975 has been assailed by PUKHAN in this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case is simple. It is said that at about 8.00 P. M. on October 3, 1974 there was an altercation between the wives of Ghanshyam and Pukhan, each of them hurling abuses on the other. Ghanshyam's wife restrained herself when Ghanshyam asked them not to quarrel. Pukhan's wife persisted and when Ghanshyam asked Pukhan, who was also present nearby, to restrain his wife from quarrelling, Pukhan is said to have given a lathi blow to Ghanshyam in the head on account where of he fell down. Durga, the deceased, then intervened and it is said that a lathi blow was given to him also by Pukhan. Durga there upon picked up a stick lying nearby and struck a few blows with it upon Pukhan who there after is said to have given a few lathi blows to Durga. Some of the blows landed on the head of Durga who was seriously injured. Pukhan is said to have run away from there.

(3.) APART from the formal evidence, the prosecution produced PW 1 Ghan- shyam, brother of the deceased, PW 2 Sagun Dulaiya, widow of the deceased, PW 4 Bundiya, the younger sister of PW 2 and a concubine of the deceased and PW 5 Kalka son of the deceased in support of its case. PW 1 did not support the prosecution story in its entirety and was cross-examined by the prosecution itself. The remaining witnesses, namely, PWs 2, 4 and 5 supported it in its entirety. The appellant denied that he had assaulted the deceased. According to him, Ghanshyam was inimically disposed towards him and so was PW 4 Bundiya. He examined Phulla, one of his brothers as DW 2 to say that it was deceased Durga who had actually assaulted Pukhan with a lathi as a result whereof the appellant fell down. When the deceased there after ran out due to nervousness and fear, he fell down headlong and sustained injuries in his head when it struck stone pieces lying in the adjoining pathway. Ghanshyam, according to this witness, had sustained injury when he was struck by a piece of stone thrown by Pukhan's wife. The trial Judge accepted the prosecution case and disbelieved the one set up by the appellant. He, wherefore, convicted the appellant as aforesaid.