RAM PARVESH RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the ten appellants, out of whom Ram Naik Ram (appellant No. 3) is reported to be dead, have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and each of them has been awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellants Ram Parvesh Ram, Bilash Ram and Dasrath Ram have further been convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years thereunder. Appellants Ram Naik Ram, Kabilash Ram, Pujan Ram, Sahdeo Ram, Mahadeo Ram, Horil Ram and Mahima Ram have further been convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, and each of them has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under that count. The sentences awarded to the appellants are to run concurrently. Appellant Ram Parvesh Ram, who was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code also, has been acquitted of that charge.

(2.) (a) The case of the prosecution is that, on the 2nd May, 1962, at about 7 p.m., Sajiwan (P. W. 6), son of Hanuman (deceased), and Subhas, son of appellant Ram Parvesh Ram, were quarrelling. Hearing the cries of Sajiwan (P. W. 6), Anupi (P W 1), wife of Hanuman, came out of her house and chastised and slapped her son Sajiwan (P. W. 6) for quarrelling with Subhas. Then Hanuman (deceased) came out of the house and rebuked his wife (P. W 1) for beating Sajiwan (P. W. 6). Appellant Ram Parvesh, who was nearby, abused Hanuman (deceased) for rebuking P. W. 1. This led to a scuffle between appellant Ram Parvesh and Hanuman, Appellant Ram Parvesh called out the other appellants. They came variously armed with lathis and knives Appellants Bilash and Dasrath were armed with lathis. They began assaulting Hanuman simultaneously. Hanuman ran inside the house to save himself, but he was chased by all the appellants, and, while he was stepping inside a room, appellant Parvesh stabbed him twice with his knife as a result whereof Hanuman fell down dead.

(3.) The defence has pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and they have challenged the genesis, the manner and the place of occurrence. The defence of the appellants is that they have been falsely implicated at the instance of Sheoji Singh (P. W. 7) and Kedar Singh, as appellant Ram Parvesh was trying to stop the females of the Chamar community from working as menial servants at their houses.