JODH RAJ Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Jodh Raj has appealed against the judgment, dated 6th July, 2006, of learned Sessions Court, whereby the appellant, who was charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, has been convicted of offence, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years. However, he has been acquitted of the offence, under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, as it emerges from the evidence led during trial, is like this. Deceased-Bishambhar and the appellant are real brothers. They had five more brothers, one of whom died a natural death long before the incident. Father of the appellant and the deceased divided his property amongst his sons. After such division, the appellant was given one room in a house, which had three rooms. The other two rooms fell to the share of the father of the appellant and his two sons, namely deceased-Bishambhar and Dilawar. Dilawar was married and deceased- Bishambhar was unmarried. In between the room that was allotted to the appellant and the two rooms, which were occupied by the father of the appellant and the deceased and his brother Dilawar, a partition wall was raised, by placing bricks in layers, one over the other. There were 19 layers of the bricks, as we count from the photographs. Ex. P.W. 7/A-l, and in terms of the number of the layers, the height of the wall should be 57 inches.

(3.) Appellant was having a grievance that his father had discriminated against him, while partitioning his landed property. Because the deceased and another brother of the appellant and the deceased, namely Dilawar, lived with their father, the appellant used to quarrel with them, on account of his grievance against his father. As per testimony of a witness, examined by the appellant, namely D.W. 1 Guran Ditta, the eldest brother of the deceased and the appellant, another reason of strained relations between the appellant, on one side, and the deceased and his brother Dilawar and their father, on the other, was that the sale proceeds from the joint orchard were with the deceased, who was unmarried at that time.