HAJRAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.S.J. Basoda in S.T. No. 149/90 (State of M.P. v. Chaturo Bai and two others) on 16/7/1997 found both the appellants guilty under Ss. 307/34 and 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code (Code for short) and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 4 years on both counts. Parvat Singh (A-2) was further held guilty under Section 324 of the Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Period of detention was set off in such sentences.

(2.) Admittedly Amol Singh (P.W. 2) was real brother of Kadori (since deceased). Chatro Bai (acquitted co-accused) was wife of Karodi while both appellants are sons of Kadori. Between brothers there was enmity due to dispute of possession of land. On 7/6/1989 at 5 A.M., late Kadori with both the appellants, his sons and wife Smt. Chatro Bai ascended in first floor of Amol Singh (P.W. 2), broke open the door and Hajrat Singh (A-1) with Farsa and Parvat Singh (A-2) with Axe badly belabored Amol Singh (P.W. 2) and his sons Jugraj, Dayaram and wife Smt. Tulsa Bai. On their shouting, Durga Soni and others rushed to save them. Amol Singh (P.W. 2) lodged F.I.R. (Ex. P/6), the same day at P.S. Tyonda at about 10.40 A.M. On medical examination of Smt. Tulsa Bai, one incised wound and one contusion was found on her person. On person of Dayaram, one incised wound was seen. On person of Jugraj, one lacerated wound, one incised wound and tenderness with swelling was noted. On person of Amol Singh (P.W. 2), seven incised wounds with compound fractures of left humerus and fractures of 2nd and 3rd metacarpel were noted. Radiologist noted fracture of meta-carpel. Soft humerus parietal bone and fibula of Amol Singh. Doctor opined that injuries of Amol Singh (P.W. 2) could be dangerous to life due to excessive bleeding. As it is 13 injuries caused by hard and blunt object though of simple nature were found on person of deceased Kadori also vide Ex. P/7. Blood was noted on Farsa seized from Hajrat Singh (A-1).

(3.) Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed that they have been falsely implicated due to dispute of possession of land. Two witnesses in defence were examined to prove quarrel between the parties due to such dispute.