VEDWATI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of Criminal appeal No. 2223/99 and Criminal Appeal No. 2080/99 arising out of the same judgment dated 26. 7. 99 passed by First Additional sessions Judge, Chhindwara in S. T. No. 273/96 convicting the appellants under Section 325/34 of IPC for causing grievous hurt to khemchand, Neelkanth, and Narbada and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count with fine of rs. 200/- each, directing the sentences to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and order of sentence appellants Moharu and Sher Khan have preferred Criminal Appeal no. 2080/99, while appellant Vedwati preferred Criminal Appeal no. 2223/99.

(2.) AS per prosecution allegations, on 31. 5. 95 at about 11 'o'clock at village Machagora, District Chhindwara when complainant Khemlal was ploughing the land belonging to his wife alongwith his sons, Narbada and Neelkanth, appellants objected to it. Appellant Moharu then gave a lathi blow to Khemlal on his right tempo parietal region and another lathi blow on the left side of his skull. Appellant Moharu gave an axe blow to Narbada, while appellant sher Khan gave lathi blow to Neelkanth causing them hurt on the various parts of their body. Upon hue and cry, Sahab Singh and Chhotu came to their rescue. The FIR of the incident was lodged at Police station Chourai, Chhindwara, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellants and was investigated. Injured khemlal, Narbada and Neelkanth were sent for medical examination. Upon their medical and X-ray examination, besides other injures, fracture on the occipital bone of right parietal region of Khemlal, a fracture on left parietal region of Narbada and a fracture in the left ulna bone of Neelkhanth were also detected. It is alleged that the appellants assaulted and attacked the complainant and his two sons in furtherance of their common intention to kill them. After due investigation, appellants were prosecuted under Section 307/34 of ipc and were put to trial.

(3.) APPELLANTS denied the charges framed against them under Section 307/34 of IPC and pleaded false implication as a counter blast to the report lodged by appellants against the complainant party.