AUTAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT, Autar, has filed this appeal against Judgment and order dated 24.3.1979 passed by Sri S. S. Srivastava, the then Vllth Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 233 of 1977 convicting the appellant under Sections 323 and 304, Part I, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and seven years respectively. The sentences mentioned above were also made to run concurrently.

(2.) IN brief, the prosecution version as is apparent from the record is that the appellant and the deceased belong to the same village Mahuawa police station Pharenda, district Gorakhpur. On 6.5 1974 at about noon Smt. Murati and her son. Ram Charan were sitting outside of the house and Murati's husband, Bhullan, deceased, went to take bath on the well situate near his house. IN the meantime, appellant's wife, Smt. Koela came to take water from the well to which Bhullan objected. This led to a quarrel between Autar, husband of Smt. Koela, and Bhullan aforesaid and during the said quarrel the appellant, Autar caused injuries to Bhullan by Akhain, as a result of which Bhullan received injuries on the skull and right temporal region. He was taken to hospital Pharenda. A report of the occurrence was lodged on the same day at the police station at 7.25 p.m. same day, t.e. 6.5.1974. A case was registered for an offence under Section 308. I.P.C. but subsequently on the death of Bhullan the case was converted into Section 304, I.P.C. During post-mortem conducted on the dead-body of Bhullan following injuries were found : 1. Lacerated wound 2-1/2" x 1/4" x scalp deep, vertical on top of skull anterior end 4-1/2" from the bridge of nose. 2 Contused swelling 5" x 6" on right temporal region.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the trial court on various grounds. He pointed out minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. According to him the name of Chowkidar who took the injured has been wrongly mentioned at various places. Whether he was Kashi or Malloo was not clear in the mind of complainant, Smt. Murati. According to him the presence of Smt. Murati and her son Ram Charan on the scene of occurrence is doubtful. According to the learned counsel the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity.