RAM DAS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Appeal preferred in this Court dates back to the year 1982. It was preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment and order dated 24.7.1982 passed by the then Addl Sessions Judge Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No 65 of 1980 whereby the case culminated in the conviction and sentences of the appellants. The appellant was convicted for offence under section 304 IPC and sentenced to under go RI for five years. Appellant Ram Singh was convicted for offence under section 324 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 200/- with default stipulation to undergo RI for two months. The third appellant Thakur Das was convicted for offence under section 323 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs 100/- with default stipulation to undergo RI for one month. The incident relates back to 29.6.1979 and it occurred in village Daya Ram Mauza Apur PS Eka Distt Mainpuri. In the instant case, the dispute erupted between the appellant and the complainant side over raising of boundary of the field. According to the allegations in the FIR, at about 8 am when the complainant alongwith his father Kishan Lal was placing fresh earth on the boundary of his field, the appellants arrived and objected to raising of boundary claiming that the field belonged to them. At that time, Ram Das was armed with Kulhari (Axe), Ram Singh was armed with Phawda (flat shaped implement), and Thakur Das was armed with Lathi. When they were confronted by Kishan Lal, Ram Das assaulted Kishan Lal from the obverse side of the Axe on his head as a result of which his father fell down on the ground.. It is further alleged that when he and his brother rushed to rescue his father from further assault, Ram Singh assaulted him with Phawda as a result, he suffered injury in his right hand. Attributing role to Thakur Das, it is alleged that Thakur Das also assaulted them by wielding lathi. It is also alleged that when they raised hue and cry, village people namely Poti Lal, Ram Prasad son of Rati Ram Lodhi, Beni Ram of Brahmapur came to their rescue and saved them from further assault. The FIR was registered at case crime no 59 of 1979 under section 323, 324 IPC

(2.) IN the instant case, a cross FIR was also lodged by Thakur Das which was registered under section 323/324 IPC in which the theme set up was that at about 8 am, Kishan Lal, Ram Singh and Shyama Charan were repairing/strengthening boundary in his field and when he objected, the aforesaid accused persons assaulted them with their respective weapon namely Pharsa, Lathi and Phawda. It is further alleged that when he screamed for help, his wife Phoola Devi and son Ram Singh rushed to his rescue but they were also assaulted by the accused persons. It is also alleged that Village people namely Ram lal, Mishri Lal and Thakur Das came to the rescue and saved him from further assault. It is also alleged that he suffered injuries from the assault of Pharsa while his wife and son suffered Lathi injuries. He explained that for fear of reprisal from accused he could not go to police Station Eka and he had come to police station Jasra for lodging the report. Immediately after the occurrence, according to the case of the prosecution set up on behalf of complainant Siya Ram, his father Kishan Lal who had fallen unconscious due to assault, was rushed initially to Eka from where his father was taken to Primary Health Centre Eka where since doctor was not available, he could not be administered proper treatment, and he succumbed to his injuries at the Hospital. The post mortem was conducted by Doctor P.K.Jain Medical officer District Hospital Etah on 30.6.1979 at 12 noon. The following anti mortem injuries were found on his person.

(3.) IN the instant case, no doubt, Thakur Das went to another police station namely PS Jasra, a police station other than the police station which includes village Daya Ram in its jurisdiction but he has explained the circumstances that he feared reprisal from the other side. As a result of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentences recorded against them are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bonds shall stand discharged. Let a copy of this decision be communicated to the court below alongwith the record with the direction to comply with the judgment and order of this Court.