RAMNATH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants having been convicted for offences under sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149 and 452, I.P.C. as detailed in judgment dated 24-10-1979, passed by Shri R.K. Gothewale, II Additional Sessions Judge Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 1979 are challenging their conviction and sentence in this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 24-2-1979 witnesses Bhagwati Bai, Sitabai and Amartibai had gone to reap wheat crop as labourers. Bhagwatibais husband Ramcharan was also out of the house. During the day when all the aforesaid persons were absent from the home, a goat belonging to Sitabai entered into the house of Gulabbai. Gulabbai hit the said goat with a danda causing severe injury on one of the legs of the goat. This is said to have been witnessed by Jagannath, the son of Sitabai. In the evening when Sitabai reached home and learnt about the hitting of the goat, she went to the house of Gulabbai and protested against hitting the goat. A quarrel thereafter took place between Gulabbai and Sitabai. It is alleged that the five appellants were standing at the house of Gulabbai. Appellant Ramesh had an axe with him while other had wooden sticks. It is said that they went to the house of Sitabai, dragged her husband Bhagirath out of the house and assaulted him. They also threatened to kill him. Thereafter, the appellants are reported to have gone to the house of Rambharose and Ramadhar and indulged in marpeet. After that they entered into the house of Bhagwatibai. Appellant Ramnath said to have caused an injury on the thigh of Ramcharan with his axe. It is further alleged that when Gundibai tried to protect Ramcharan, appellant Deva and Harbhajan gave her beatings. All other appellants also joined them. Ramcharan was thereafter dragged from inside the house to the angan (courtyard) assaulted and taken to the house of Ramnath where he became unconscious. Gaitribai the daughter of Ramcharan went with her father to the house of Ramnath but was driven away. Witness Laxminarayan and Ramdeo saw Ramcharan shouting in a semiconscious state. They took Ramcharan to the house of Bhagirath. The matter was reported to the police by Bhagwatibai and Sitabai. Ex. P.1 is the First Information Report lodged at 11-30 p.m. on that very day. After investigation the challan was filed.

(3.) During the trial the learned AddI. Sessions Judge found that Bhagwatibai (P.W. 1), Sitabai (P.W. 7), Amrawatibi (P.W. 8) Ramcharan (P.W. 9), Ganga Bisan (P.W. 10) and Gaitri Bai (P.W. 11) are the eye-witnesses. After examining in detail their evidence the learned Judge held that the appellants were responsible for causing injury to Ramcharan and Gundibai, entering into their house forciblly taking out Ramcharan and taking him to the house of Ramnath. It appears that right of self-defence was claimed by the appellants. There claim was that Ramcharan and his friends had assaulted them and a criminal case in that respect is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Class I, Harda. Learned Judge, however, disbelieved the story of self defence on the ground that there was nothing on the basis of which such a plea could be sustained. The fact that Ramcharan was all alone was held sufficient to discard the right of self defence in favour of the five appellants. Inspite of it the learned Judge did not find any intention on the part of the appellants to either kill Gundibai nor they were found to have any knowledge of any such intention. It was, however, held sufficiently established that the appellant had decides to indulge in marpeet and, had common intention to cause injury. They were accordingly held guilty and convicted. Appellant Deva who is apparently of 13;years of age and Harbhajan who was said to be of 20 years of age were released after admonishing them while the other 3 appellants have been given jail sentences.