SHIV CHARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have been con-victed under Section 147, I. P. C. and sentenced to one years' R. I. They have also been convicted under Section 325/149, I. P. C. and sentenced to two years' R. I. They have been further convicted under Section 323/149 and sentenced to one year's R. I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that one of the appellants Puran came along with Jassoo, Madan Lal and Kunwar Prasad prior to 10th September 1961 and asked Lila (P. W. 1) and Koka (P. W. 6) and his nephew Shanker (P. W. 5) to vacate the piece of land in dispute which had been in the possession of the family of Lila. These four persons are alleged to have demanded Rs. 500, and, in default o? payment that, Lila and Koka should vacate the house in dispute. As the two brothers, Lila and Koka, refused either to vacate the house or to pay Rs. 500, the four persons went away threatening the two brothers with dire consequences. On 10th September, 1961, at about 7. 30 A. M. the four appellants Shiv Charan s/o Jassoo, Daulat s/o Chhidda, Kissoo s/o Madan Lal and Hari Ram s/o Kunwar Praead and a man called Puran, unrelated with the other accused persons, who are all first cousins, are alleged to have come to the spot and to have attacked Lila and Koka until these two persons were saved by the intervention of Shanker (P. W. 5), and witnesses Raghubar Dayal (P. W. 2) and Gajraj (P. W. 3) and Pearey (P. W. 4) also arrived at the scene. A. F. I. R. of this incident was lodged at 11. 30 A. M. at Police Station Kakoor on 10. 91961 by Lila (P. W. 1 ). In this report Pooran is mentioned among those who had threatened four days prior to the incident, but the name of Pooran is not mentioned among those who came with lathis to the scene of occurrence on the date of the incident.

(3.) A counter report was lodged at 2. 30 P. M. at police station Kakoor in which the accused set out their version. The difference between the two versions is that each side claims to be in possession of the house in dispute and each side alleges that the aggression came from the other side. The two appellants, namely Pooran and Sheo Charan, alleged that they were not on the scene of occurrence at all whereas Kissoo contented himself by denying the truthfulness of the prosecution case and did not set up a plea of alibi. No evidence was given to prove the alibis set up. Two of the appellants namely Daulat and Hari Bam admitted their participation in, the occurrence in which, according to their case, they were victims of aggression. The injuries sustained by Lila (P. W. 1) and Koka (P. W. 6) were 13 in number, including a grievous injury, whereas the injuries sustained by Daulat and Hari Ram appellants were 9 in number, also including grievous injuries.