LAWS(MPH)-1999-1-9

DHANIRAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On January 30, 1999
DHANIRAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The five appellants have been convicted under Ss. 148 and 307/149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and five years respectively.

(2.) The prosecution case is that there was a dispute between Brijlal (P.W. 1) and the accused persons regarding the use of water from a tank for irrigation purposes. On 8-12-1986 Brijlal (P.W. 1) and his brother Bhaulal (P.W. 3) were working in their field in village Sawargaon with their family members. At about 3 p.m. Pustkalabai (P.W. 5) daughter of Brijlal (P.W. 1) went to take some drinking water from a nearby well and came back shouting that she has been assaulted by accused-Dhaniram by a lathi. All the five accused persons also came chasing her. They were armed with barchi, axe and lathi. They started causing injuries to Brijlal (P.W. 1). He sustained eight injuries. Bhaulal (P.W. 3) was also attacked by them and he received eleven injuries. They became unconscious on the spot. Mungabai, wife of Brijlal (P.W. 1) also sustained injury while saving her husband. The incident was witnessed by Kishore (P.W. 2), son of Brijlal (P.W. 1), Pustkalabai (P.W. 5) and Pawanlal (P.W. 4) Kishore (P.W. 2) lodged the report Ex. P-2 at Tirodi police station at 6 p.m. on the same date. The injured persons were sent to the hospital for examination. Brijlal (P.W. 1) and Bhaulal (P.W. 3) remained admitted in the hospital from 9-12-1986 to 26-12-1986. There was fracture in the middle finger of the left hand of Brijlal (P.W. 1). According to the prosecution the accused persons attempted to commit murder of Brijlal (P.W. 1) and Bhaulal (P.W. 3) in prosecution of the common object of their unlawful assembly.

(3.) The accused persons pleaded not guilty. Their defence is that the complainant party was the aggressor and caused injuries to accused-Jhanaklal and Ruplal. Both of them sustained four injuries each. They acted in self-defence. It is also pleaded that accused Tikaram and Tukaram were not on the spot.