MULUK RAM & OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of The Code of Criminal Proce­dure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.5.1993 passed by Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1992, State v. Mulak Ram & Others, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted all the appellants/accused Mulak Ram, Daya Ram, Vinod & Ludar Singh under Sec­tion 323 read with Section 34 and un­der Section 392 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and each of the appellants/ac­cused has been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and further sentenced them to thee years rigorous imprison­ment under Section 392 I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge directed that both the sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) LEARNED District Judge vide his letter dated 20.4.2004 has reported that the appellant/accused Mulak Ram died during the pendency of this appeal. Hence, the appeal of Mulak Ram stands abated.

(3.) IN brief, the case of prosecution as set out before the trial court is that on 3.1.1992 at 11 A.M., the complain­ant Chait Singh, PW-1 started from Patwari post to village Himrol for the in­vestigation of the complaint lodged by Mahime Nand. He was accompanied by two peons, namely, Prem Singh Rana and Prem Singh Makhloga. While com­plaint Chait Singh was on his way to vil­lage Himrol, the appellants/accused had met him. Appellant/accused Daya Ram was armed with a gun and rest of the appellants/accused were having Dandas (Lathis). All the appellants/ac­cused surrounded the complainant Chait Singh and started abusing him. Appel­lants/accused asked the complainant Chait Singh that why he did not show their houses as totally damaged and dev­astated in the earthquake as because of this they were deprived from getting the earthquake relief meant for the category of the persons whose properties were fully damaged. Appellants/accused also told the complainant that blankets were not distributed to them. The complaint Chait Singh said to the appellants/accused that the verification of the damage of prop­erty in the earthquake was done by the committee of higher officers and blan­kets would be distributed amongst those persons whose properties were com­pletely damaged. After hearing this, the appellants/accused started abusing the complainant. Accused Daya Ram as­saulted the complainant with the butt of the gun he was armed with and other accused caused injuries to him with the lathies. The above said peons who were accompanying the complainant tried to intervene and save him. The complain­ant also raised alarm. After hearing the noise, the villagers of Himrol reached at the place of occurrence. The complain­ant has further alleged that the appel­lants/accused took away his spectacle, watch, pen and rupees 85/- from his pocket and also threatened to kill him. With these averments, PW-1, Chait Singh lodged his report on 4.1.1992 with his complaint Ex. Ka-1 before the Naib Tehsildar, Barkot, District Uttarkashi. On the basis of this report, Patwari Tinya prepared the chick FIR, Ex. Ka-3 and the case was registered in the G.D. Copy of the G.D. is Ex. Ka-4. Injured complain­ant Chait Singh was medically examined by the medical officer, Dr. Meenash Chaturvedi, PW-5 who prepared the in­jury report Ex. Ka-2. During the course of the investigation, the I.O. prepared the site plan of the place of the occurrence which is Ex. Ka-5. The I.O. also recorded the statements of the witnesses during the course of the investigation and on com­pletion of the investigation, he filed the chargesheet against the appellants/ac­cused, which is Ex. Ka-6.