RAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the six appellants - accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.2.1998 delivered by the Fifth Additional Session Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 79/1993, whereby the Sessions Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :__ <IMG>JUDGEMENT_18_MPWN3_2008.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_18_MPWN31_2008.jpg</IMG> All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

(2.) AS per prosecution case, on 16.12.1992 at about 5:30 in the evening Suresh (PW 5) was going to his field from his house to answer the nature call. He heard noise from the direction of 'Phoot' field. He went to the said direction and saw Balram, Ujagar son of Pratap, Keshav, Gyan Singh, Rai Singh, Shyam Singh, Indal were irrigating their fields. Ummed, Ramhet, Rambaran Singh, Sobaran were also present there. Shyam Singh and Rai Singh armed with 'farsa'. They destroyed the 'Medh' (boundary) of the field, and thereafter Keshav, Ujagar, Gyan Singh, Indal went there with 'lathis' and 'ballam', and started causing injuries to Ummed, Ramhet, Sobaran and Rambaran. Keshav caused injury by 'ballam' on the chest of Rambaran, which stuck near nipple, due to which Rambaran was unconscious and fell down. Shyam Singh caused,injury by 'farsa' on the head of Ramhet. Rai Singh caused injury by 'farsa' on the head of Ummed. Thereafter Pahalwan, Shrigovind, Jagram came on the spot and saved Sobaran. In the incident, Sobaran, Ramhet, Rambaran, Sarwati and Ummed were also injured. The report of the incident was lodged by Suresh (PW 5) at Police Station, Umri, which is 4 kms away from the village Gahwat. On the basis of the report, the police registered criminal case at Crime No. 16/1993 against the accused and after investigation filed challan. The matter was committed to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court framed charges against the accused as under :

(3.) SHRI Madhukar Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case Rambaran Singh died due to injuries sustained by him, while other five persons had sustained simple injuries. According to him, the incident had taken place due to the dispute over taking water for irrigation purposes. He submits that the incident had taken place suddenly, and therefore, offence under section 302 IPC is not made out. In support of his argument, he invited attention of this Court first to the statement of Suresh (PW 5), who is injured witness as well as the author of the FIR.