TULARAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.5.04 passed in Sessions Trial No.211/2002 by the Court of II Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, this Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), whereby appellant no.1 Tularam has been convicted under Section 307 read with 34 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") while appellant Sakharam has been convicted under Section 307 and 302 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced accordingly.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief is that on 9.6.2002 at about 6 pm, some altercation took place between Ramnath and co-accused Raju at the Flourmill of former. Thereafter at about 7:30 pm when Ramnath was returning to his home after closing his Flourmill, Raju restrained him wrongfully and started quarrelling. At that time, Bipatlal Lodhi, grandfather of Raju, armed with Lathi, came on the spot and dealt a Lathi blow on Ramnath's head. On hearing the commotion, nephew Santu and brother Badri Lodhi of Ramnath came to the spot. At that time Tularam, uncle of Raju, armed with a Ballam and Sakharam armed with a Lathi also came there and started quarrelling. Thereafter, Tularam pierced his Ballam on the left side of the chest of Badri as a result of which he fell down. Tularam then pierced a Ballam on the left shoulder of Ramnath. Sakharam dealt two Lathi blows on the head of Santu as a result of which he became unconscious. Raju threw Ramnath on the ground causing him injuries on the head. The incident was witnessed by Jogi Lodhi, Mahasigh, Shivsingh Gond, who also intervened. Thereafter, Badri was lifted and brought to his home, where he was found to be dead. Thereafter, complainant Ramnath along with Santu, Gendlal Lodhi, Suresh Lodhi and Hazari Lodhi lodged the First Information Report at Police Station Chand.

(3.) ACCUSED Raju was convicted under Sections 341 and 323 read with 34 of the IPC, whereas accused Bipat was convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and were sentenced accordingly, but no appeal has been preferred on their behalf.