NATHU Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three appellants were convicted under Ss. 302/34, I. P. C. on 5-2-80 by an order of the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in S. T. No. 297 of 1978 and each was convicted to undergo life imprisonment. They were also convicted for an offence under S. 323/34, I. P. C. by the same order in the same trial and each was sentenced to R. I. for three months. The sentences were to run concurrently. Upon presentation of the appeal on 3-3-80 the appellants were granted bail.

(2.) The F. I. R. that was lodged against these three appellants was drawn up on the statement of one Tulsi Ram. The alleged incident took place on 14-8-77 at about 8.00 a.m. and the report was made on the same day at about 12.30 p.m. The witnesses named in the F. I. R. were Sukhpal and Devi Deen. It was stated in the report that for a particular land in front of the house of the complainant they have been given a patta. When they were clearing the land the accused appellants objected to it. When the complainant claimed that the land was his, the accused appellants started abusing in filthy language. When objected to by the complainant, the accused-appellants assaulted with lathies. He shouted which attracted Ram Prakash, Gur Dayal and the daughter-in-law of the complainant. These persons were also assaulted by the accused appellants and they had threatened them with dire consequences, if any report was made to the police station.

(3.) Upon this report, initially a case under Ss. 504, 323 and 506, I. P. C. was started but subse-quently the injured Ram Prakash succumbed to his injuries and the case was converted to one under S. 304, I. P. C. as well. After necessary investigation, chargesheet was submitted and after commitment of the case to the court of session a charge under S. 323 read with 34, I. P. C. was framed against the appellants for having caused simple hurt to Maya, Tulsi Ram and Gur Dayal in furtherance of their common intention. A further charge under S. 302/34, I. P. C. was framed against them for having caused the death of Ram Prakash by causing him such injury as was likely to cause death in the ordinary course of the nature. This was also attributed to have been caused in furtherance of their common in-tention. The charges were denied by the appel-lants.