STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SUDESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed for enhancement of sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharmashala, on April 5, 1997, in Sessions Case No. 17-K/VII-1996.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that on November 4, 1994 at about 8 p.m. at Village Chari, PW 2 Mast Ram at his residence. 20-25 days prior to the date of the incident, Dinesh Kumar, son of Mast Ram, was beaten by accused persons. On the date in question, therefore, the complainant asked accused persons as to why they had all beaten the son of the complainant. On that, the accused persons started abusing the complainant. All the three accused were armed with weapons. Accused No. 1 Sudesh Kumar was having axe, accused No. 2 Ashwani Kumar was having Belcha and accused No. 3 Suneet Kumar was having Danda. According to the prosecution accused No. 1 administered two blows of axe; accused No. 2 gave one blow on neck with Belcha and accused No. 3 gave one blow with Danda on the forehead of the complainant. Meanwhile, PW 3 Ranjeeshna, wife of PW 2 reached there and tried to help her husband. But she was threatened and was removed from the place. Dinesh Kumar, son of the complainant then went to PW 4 Soni, Pradhan of Village and reported the matter to him. PW 4 Soni, Pradhan came to the place of offence but meanwhile all the accused had left the place. Mast Ram was unconscious. He was taken to hospital. He was accompanied by his wife, whose statement was recorded by the police and First Information Report was registered. Police visited the spot on the next day, that is, November 5, 1994. After usual investigation, charges were framed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(3.) The case of the accused was of total denial. In further statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 accused No. 3 Suneet Kumar has stated that he was innocent. On the day in question, he was in his house and he had not witnessed any quarrel between the complainant Mast Ram and his brOrs. . He also did not know why his name was given by Mast. Ram. Case of accused Nos. 1 and 2 in their further statements was that both of them were innocent and they were falsely implicated by interested witnesses and close relatives of the complainant. They stated that on November 4, 1994, they were returning home after working in the field. When they reached near the house of Mast Ram, he was present in his house. He came down from his 'Bohar'. On seeing them (accused Nos. 1 and 2), Mast Ram who was having a Danda in his hand went behind accused No. 2 Ashwani to beat him. Accused No. 1 apprehended that Mast Ram might kill his brother. Accused No. 1 was having a sickle in his hand and with a view to save his brother Ashwani, he caused injuries to Mast Ram. Had such injuries not been caused by him to complainant Mast Ram, his brother might have been killed by the complainant. It was also stated by the accused that they had no enmity with complainant Mast Ram. Accused No. 2 had stated that Suneet (accused No. 3) was not with him.