ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants have filed this appeal against judgment dated 12.11.1987, vide which they were convicted for commission of an offence under 463 Section 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for five years.

(2.) Arguments addressed by counsel for the parties and a perusal of records reveal that at the instance of Rahis Ahmad, FIR No. 39 was recorded against the appellants alongwith one Balli on 7.3.1985. During trial, it was case of the prosecution that on 6.3.1985 at about 10.00 P.M. when Rahis Ahmad and his maternal uncle were taking their meals, they heard cries of a woman. On hearing that noise, Tofik Ahmad came out of his jhuggi and noticed that Balli (who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 664-SB of 1987), was beating his wife mercilessly. She was saved due to intervention of Tofik Ahmad. Balli did not like that intervention and told Tofik Ahmad that he will be taught a lesson. It is further allegation against the appellants that on 7.3.1988 at about 11.00 P.M., when tofik Ahmad went to take water from a tap for taking bath, then all the accused/appellants alongwith Balli appared at the spot. Appellant Ashok Kumar, who was armd with a wooden stick, caused a blow at the head of Tofik Ahmad who fell down and became unconscious. He was taken to hospital, where he was medically examined by a doctor and one injury was declared simple, another was kept under observation and on X-ray, it was found to be a fracture of scalp bone and doctor declared that injury as grievous.

(3.) All the accused were put to trial under Sections 308/34 IPC. Prosecution led evidence to prove its case. On completion,of prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants were recorded, as per law, wherein they pleaded false implication. They also examined Mr. S.S. Rupra, Advocate and Mr. P.N. Gulati, Advocate in their defence as their defence witnesses. Trial Court, after appreciating evidence, as led by both the parties, found the appellants guilty of offence, with which they were charged, convicted and sentenced them accordingly, as found mentioned in first paragraph of this order.