KANTHI RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Appeal stands directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmour at Nahan rendered on 15/6/2007 in Sessions Trial 22-N/7 of 1997, whereby, he returned findings of conviction upon the Accused/convicts, for their committing offences punishable under Ss. 147, 323, 353, 332, 325 read with Sec. 149 of the IPC. The learned trial Court also proceeded to sentence them under Sec. 147 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one month and similar punishment under Sec. 323 read with Sec. 149 of the IPC was imposed them. The learned trial Court further proceeded to under Sec. 325 read with Sec. 149 of the IPC sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00 and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months. They have also been sentenced under Sec. 332 read with Sec. 149 of the IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 each and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for a term of two months. The learned trial Court further proceeded to under the provisions of Sec. 353 read with Sec. 149 IPC, sentence the convicts to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to a fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one month

(2.) The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that an FIR No. 21/96 under Sec. 436 IPC had been caused to be registered at Police Station, Renukaji on 6/2/1996, in which Accused Kanthi Ram was the complainant. During the investigation of that case, the complainant had gone to village Chulti-ka-Thach on 29/6/1996, along with LHC Hari Saran, Surjan Singh, Kannungo and Sher Singh Patwari in order to get the land demarcated in the said village. Local persons namely, Bansi Ram and Deep Ram were also joined. Allegedly at about 11 a.m. Kanthi Ram who was also present on the spot handed over two letters, one to the complainant and another to Surjan Singh, Kanungo, which were signed by Pradhan and BDC members stating therein that the demarcation of the land may not be carried out. Allegedly, while they were going through the aforesaid letters, in the meantime the other brothers of Kanthi Ram namely Accused Tula Ram, Accused Babu Ram and their father Roop Singh (since deceased) emerged from behind the bushes and started pelting stones on them. They were also accompanied by two wowen namely Accused Rehno and Accused Gulabo Devi. They also started pelting stones upon them, vis-a-vis Tula Ram, PW-1 LHC Hari Saran, PW-2, Sher Singh Patwari PW-3, complainant and Deep Ram. Kanthi Ram snatched the revenue papers from Sher Singh Patwari. The Accused persons also pushed on Tula Ram to the ground and gave him beatings. Kanthi Ram even caught hold of Tula Ram by his neck. Then Kanthi Ram had also pelted stones. As a result of pelting stones and beatings Tula Ram had sustained multiple injuries on his body on account of which he fell unconscious. Thereafter, all the Accused ran away apprehending that Tula Ram was dead. As per prosecution story, the Accused persons had deterred the police and revenue officials from carrying out the demarcation. Ruqua Ext. PB was drawn up by the complainant and got it sent to the Police Station for registration of the case. During investigation, all the injured were medically examined from Doctor Birbal Vij, BMO Pachhad. Tula Ram was referred to District Hospital for further treatment. Clothes of injured were taken into possession. Allegedly Kanthi Ram had made a disclosure statement and in consequence thereof, got recovered revenue record. After the completion of investigation, the Challan was put in the Court of law against the Accused persons including Roop Singh who is said to have died during the pendency of Challan. Vide judgment of conviction dtd. 12/10/1998, all the Accused persons were convicted under Ss. 147, 323, 325 and 353 read with Sec. 149 IPC and acquitted under Sec. 307, 332 and 382 IPC. Against the judgment dtd. 12/10/1998, an Appeal was preferred before this Court and vide judgment dtd. 16/7/2002 the case was sent back for retrial by framing fresh appropriate charges against the Accused. Consequent upon the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court, the Accused persons were put fresh charges under Ss. 147 and 149, 307, 353,332 and 382 read with Sec. 149 IPC on 23/8/2002.

(3.) On conclusion of the investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the Accused, a report under Sec. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed before the learned trial Court.