CHHIDDU SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by Chhiddu Singh Sheo Prakash Sheo Bir Singh and Ghanshyam Singh against the judgment and order dated 25.9.1980 of VIth Additional Sessions Judge Kanpur in S.T. No. 10/M of 1980 convicting the appellants under Sections 323 324 and 302 read with Sec. 34 Penal Code and sentencing them to 9 months' R.I. one year R.I. and imprisonment for life respectively the sentences having been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellants deceased and injured belonged to village Karauli where there is an irrigation channel through which the villagers irrigate their fields. The parties are collaterals and litigation regarding some property was going on between them due to which their relations were strained. The agricultural land of deceased Beni Singh is adjoining to the agricultural land of accused Chhiddu Singh which is on the eastern side. The irrigation channel runs parallel to their fields and the water flows from west to east The deceased Beni Singh and his sons were irrigating their field from the aforesaid channel on 14.10.1979. At about 12.00 noon Chhiddu Singh armed with lathi Sheo Prakash Singh and Sheo Bir Singh armed with tabbals and Ghanshyam Singh armed with Sela (flat spear) came there and started to divert the flow of water to their own field which was objected to by the sons of Beni Singh. Chhiddu Singh said that he would definitely irrigate his field on that day which was resisted by the sons of Beni Singh. Thereafter all the four accused started assaulting with the weapons which they were carrying due to which Beni Singh and his three sons Munna Singh Ram Kumar and Vijai Kumar Singh received injuries. Beni Singh died on the spot Later on Vijai Kumar Singh also succumbed to his injuries on 23.10.1979. A written F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Ram Avtar Singh at 3.15 p.m. on 14.10.1979 at P.S. Bidhnu which is 8 miles from the place of occurrence. In the F.I.R. it was mentioned that the brothers of the informant had also wielded lathis due to which some injuries were caused to the accused.

(3.) P.W. 10 Ram Sagar Yadav S.O. at P.S. Bidhnu commenced investigation of the case and recorded statement of Ram Avtar Singh and proceeded for the spot alongwith some police personnel. After reaching there he held inquest on the body of deceased Beni Singh. He prepared a letter for C.M.O. for the purpose of conducting post-mortem examination and also prepared photo lash and chalan lash. He conducted an inspection of the spot with the assistance of the first informant. He found some blood in the field of Mazid Main. He collected samples of plain and bloodstained earth from there. He found a phawra on the spot on the wooden stick of which there was blood. The phawra and its stick were taken into possession and its memo was prepared. He also found a tabbal and danda which were also taken into possession. He recorded statement of the injured persons on 15.10.1979. Chhiddu Singh was arrested while he was going to Kanpur and he was detained in the lock-up of the police station at 11.40 p.m. on 15.10.1979. The other accused had surrendered in court whose statement was recorded in jail on 27.10.1979. After completing investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the accused. In due course the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused on 25.4.1980 which were amended on 5.9.1980 The accused were charged under Sections 323/34 324/34 302/34 and 302/34 Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses including two eye-witnesses. The accused in their statement denied the prosecution case and set up a counter version. It was stated by Chhiddu Singh that he was irrigating his field when Beni Singh and his sons came there who blocked the channed and diverted the water to their own field. When he raised on alarm Beni Singh and Ram Kumar Singh assaulted them and in self defence they also caused injuries to the other side. The accused examined 4 wit-nesses in their defence. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the claim of self defence set up by the accused and convicted and sentenced them as stated above.