SUKHDEO Vs. JAGDISH NARAYAN SHUKLA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. Tewari at length on a half of the complainant. He held placed before me the relent extracts from the evidence as well as the details of the injuries sustained by the five members of the complainant party. He has particularly stressed that Hari Lal accused, who is alleged to have been armed with Pharsa, has been wrongly given the benefit of doubt by the Sessions Judge along with 19 other accused and that the evidence on record fully proves that Hari Lal accused had actively participated in the 'marpit' and had inflicted at least one 'pharsa' injury on P.W. Jageshar. The medical evidence also shows that one of the injuries sustained by Jageshar was caused by a sharp edged weapon like 'Pharsa'.

(2.) IT may be noted that the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, had principally relied upon the evidence of P.W. Ram Lakhan while giving the benefit of doubt to 20 of the accused. In his statement this witness had actually named 11 persons who were active assailants on the complainant party; the others being assigned minor role of either instigating, standing or cutting the crop in the field. In that list of 11 persons P.W. Ram Lakhan did not include Hari Lal accused, although a little later he stated that Hari Lal was armed with a 'pharsa' but even then he did not say that Hari Lal had actually wielded his 'pharsa' on P.W. Jageshar. In this view of the matter it could not be said that the finding of the Sessions Judge was wrong or perverse when he gave the benefit of doubt to Hari Lal as well. It is noteworthy that according to the depositions of P.Ws. Ram Lakhan and others, there were 9 or 10 persons belonging to the accused party who were armed with 'Gandasas'. It may be that the cut injury received by P.Ws. Jageshar was caused by the 'Gandasa' of one of those 9 or 10 persons.

(3.) IN the circumstances the revision has no force and is dismissed.