BIASAN DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six appeals are being disposed of by one common judgment since they all arise out of one judgment dated 30.6.2005/27.7.2005, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2003/3 of 2004, whereby he convicted the accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, and 506 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment for commission of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment fine, each of the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The accused were further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in respect of offence under Section 147 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. For the commission of the offence under Section 148 IPC, each of the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for five months. For the commission of offence under Section 323 IPC each of the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine each of them was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that Jai Chand (deceased) and Kikkar Singh were neighbours in village Kaloh, Tappa Lagwalti, Tehsil Sujanpur, District Hamirpur. They shared a boundary and there were some disputes with regard to the boundary between the two sides for a period of 2-3 years prior to the occurrence. These disputes were pending in Court and also before the Panchayat. About 2-3 months before the incident, which took place on 21.3.2003, the Panchayat Pardhan Shri Jagar Nath alongwith 2/3 other persons visited the spot and fixed the boundaries between the two sides and a written compromise was also entered into between the parties.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Anup Chitkara and Mr. Vinay Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent. On behalf of the accused, it is urged that as far as Sita Devi is concerned, there is no evidence worth the name against her. Even the main eye witnesses relied upon by the prosecution does not state that Sita Devi was present on the spot. In respect of other accused, the case of the defence is that only Biasan Devi was at the spot. Further according to the defence she had only objected to the fence being constructed, but it is denied that any stones were thrown. According to the defence the deceased had not taken meals since the morning and had been working throughout the morning and therefore, may have died due to exertion especially he was already a heart patient. It is further alleged that the deceased did not die due to result of a stone injury and the medical evidence does not at all corroborate the statements of the witnesses. It is specifically urged that the injury in question could not have been caused by the stones. The defence has also led evidence and relying upon this evidence, it is stated that the deceased fell down on the lintel or the courtyard which were made of cement and suffered the injury in question and no injury was caused by the stones allegedly hurled by the accused.