STATE Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, on 10-1-1972.

(2.) THE respondents were tried for an offence under Section 302 R. P. C. for causing the death of one Bhim Singh. According to the prosecution story Des Raj accused used to chop off branches of a 'beri' tree belonging to Sardar Singh P. W. and his brother Bhim Singh, deceased and on this account their relations had become strained. Despite objections by Sardar Singh P. W. , Des Raj accused, did not desist from cutting the branches of the tree whereupon Sardar Singh convened a meeting of the residents of village Gonper on the evening of 12th March, 1971. Although, the real purpose of the meeting was to deal with the situation arising out of the cutting of branches of the tree but as a camouflage it was given out that the meeting was meant to consider the proposal regarding the construction of a water tank. The accused persons were also present, amongst others at the meeting. Some inconclusive talk regarding the construction of water tank took place and soon thereafter the matter regarding unauthorised cutting of the branches of the 'beri' tree was brought up. Amar Nath, accused, was asked to urge upon Des Raj accused to desist from committing the mischief. Des Raj accused then reported that let alone the branches of an insignificant 'beri' tree, he can even chop off the head of a person. The meeting was about to take an unfortunate turn on this remark but the same was averted by the intervention of other persons present there. When the meeting dispersed, Des Raj accused hurled abuses at Bhim Singh deceased and a fight ensued. It is further the prosecution story that Amar Nath accused then instigated all the members of the accused party. He shouted that the period of the reign of Chib Rajputs had ended and, therefore, Bhim Singh and Sardar Singh should not be allowed to go home alive. On being so instigated, Des Raj accused pelted a stone which hit Bhim Singh deceased on the left side of his head. Major Singh accused, father of Des Raj aimed another stone on Bhim Singh which hit him on the right side of his head. As a result of the injuries received, Bhim Singh fell down. All the accused are then alleged to have inflicted blows on the deceased with stones and fists. Shonku and Dhyan Singh attempted to rescue Sardar Singh and his brother Bhim Singh deceased but they were also assaulted by the accused party. Mulkh Raj accused inflicted injuries on Sardar Singh on his lip and back while Mela Ram accused inflicted injuries on the shoulder of Shonku with an axe and Anant Ram caused injuries on the right arm of Dhyan Singh with an axe. Apprehending, that the deceased who had fallen down, had died, the accused party ran away from the spot. Bhim Singh deceased was, thereafter, taken to the hospital and report of the occurrence was made at the police station, Chamb, by Sardar Singh, Shonku Ram and Dhyan Singh. Initially a case was registered under Sections 307/147/148/149 R. P. C. but after Bhim Singh died on the next morning, the offence was converted into an offence under Section 302 R. P. C. The case was investigated and the challan was put in the court. The accused persons were committed to stand their trial by the learned committing magistrate.

(3.) DURING the trial, the prosecution examined Sardar Singh, Dhyan Singh, Chhailo Ram, Manga, Jullander Singh, Baldev Singh, Shiv Nath, Dewan Chand, Dr. Ravinder Gupta and Tej Ram, Sub-Inspector of Police. The accused denied to have participated in the occurrence and in their statements recorded under Section 342 Cr. P. C. they alleged that they had no knowledge about the occurrence. They also denied their participation at the alleged meeting convened by Sardar Singh. In their defence they examined Shonku Ram, who was originally cited as a witness by the prosecution, Sain Dass and Devan. After adverting to the evidence led in the case, the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, disbelieved the prosecution case and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved against the acquittal, the State has come up in an appeal.