UDE RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by four persons, Ude Ram, Sohni, Chitra and Gurgal against their convictions under sections 304 Part II read with Section 149, 325 read with sections 148 and 149, Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Chitra is on bail. Of the accused Ude Ram is a Jat of 25 years of age and Chitra is the father of Sohni and Gurgal.

(2.) According to the prosecution there was enmity the intensity of which has been variously described by different witnesses. There is a portion of land belonging to Bhagwan Sahai P.W. and it is one side of the lane and on the other side is the house of Chitra. Bhagwhan Sahai wanted to build a boundary wall along the lane and at about 8 or 9 a.m. on the date of the accurrence which was the 21st of July, 1954 he accompanied with prosecution witnesses Nirbal, Gariba and Bhup Ram and the deceased went to the place to build the wall. Ganeshi P.W., it is stated, was already there. When a portion of the wall had been constructed Chitra came there and objected. Bhagwan Sahai continued to build and Chitra thereupon called Bhagwan Sahai Jat as Kana (One eyed) and Bhagwan Sahai abused him in return. The sons of Chitra were already there and Ude Ram, whose house is close by, came to the spot when Chitra shouted for him. Along with Chitra came the other accused armed with lathis and started attacking the other persons. According to the prosecution the first blow was given by Ude Ram on the head of Bhup Ram and then on the head of Tek Chand deceased, and Sohani accused gave another blow on the head of Tek Chand who fell down, and all the accused then injured others, i.e. Nirbal, Gariba and Bhagwan Sahai and they in return inflicted injuries on the persons of the accused party.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge has found that the witnesses for the prosecution are guilty of exaggerating the case of suppressing the facts and of giving wrong version. It has not been found as to who actually was in possession of the property or owned the property, but this much is clear that the party of the accused had some straw (Phus) and firewood lying on the land in dispute. The learned Judge has also found that there was an exchange of abuse between the parties and the parties came to blow and serious injuries were caused as a result of which Tek Chand died. He was of the opinion that there was a free fight and, therefore, no question of self-defence arose.