HARI NANDAN Vs. RAMJEET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 29.9.1986 passed by Sri Sachidanand Shukla then VIIth Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Azamgarh acquitting the accused opposite parties No. 1 to 4 in the offence under Sections 308, 308/34, 323 and 323/34 I.P.C.

(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the revisionist Hari Nandan lodged a F.I.R. against the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 at Police Station Mohamdabad District Azamgarh on 25.10.1981 at 12.10 P.M. with these allegations that he has got his Abadi land in front of his house at village Bhati Kala, P.S. Mohamdabad. That land is in his possession and on the above date at about 9.30A.M. his Pattidars namely Ramjeet, Mohan, Anurup and Chaurangi came there and started to dig it. Then his wife and son Braj Bhushan prohibited them from doing so. The accused started abusing his wife and son and attacked them from spade and Lathis; upon noise he and other witnesses reached there and protected his wife and son. His wife received a grievous injury which was dangerous to her life. The accused had caused j injury upon her head from spade with intention to kill her arid she had lost her senses. It was, therefore, prayed that necessary action may be taken into the matter. On the basis of the above report the police registered a case under Sections 308, 323, 324 and 504 I.P.C. and investigated the same. The injuries of Braj Bhushan and Smt. Sahdei wife of the complainant were examined. After completion of the investigation the police submitted a charge sheet in the case under Sections 308, 323, 324, 504 I.P.C. The case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. The accused Ramjeet was charged under Section 308 I.P.C., accused Mohan, Anurup and Chaurangi were charged under Section 308/34 I.P.C, and all the accused were charged under Section 323/34 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty" and claimed trial. The prosecution examined the complainant Hari Nandan as P.W. 1. He narrated the entire case on oath and also proved his written report "Ext Ka-1, Smt. Sahdei Devi wife of the complaint was examined as P.W. 2 and Jhalmal an eye witness of the incident was examined as P.W. 3. No other witness was produced by the prosecution as the accused waived formal proof of Chile-report. G.D., injuries of the injured persons, site plan and these documents were marked as Ext Ka-2 to Ka-7.

(3.) The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the entire prosecution allegations and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case. They did not produce any defence.