HAMJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th of October, 1977, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, convicting the appellant Under Section 302 IPC and awarding a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ -.

(2.) THE incident which led to the prosecution of the present appellant took place in the field on 21st. June, 1977 when Kamji deceased was ploughing the land. At that time Hamji came there and asked Kamji not plough the land and inflicted injury with 'Kash'. At that time, Hamji was accompanied by Bhuria and Kalia. The report of this incident was lodged at Police Station, Sallepat, District Banswara on 21st June, 1977 at 11.30 A.M. by Bhoorji son of Kamji. The prosecution in support of its case examined 16 witnesses PW 1 Bhoorji, PW 2 Jokhi and PW 15 Kanti are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence who has supported the prosecution case during the trial PW 9 Soma and PW 1 Punja, who were cultivating their fields came at the scene of the occurrence when PW 1. Bhoorji raised an alarm and has witnessed the occurrence, but they have not supported the prosecution case during trial and have been declared hostile. PW 7 Magji was the witness relating to the extra judicial confession, but he has also not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. PW 3 Deva, PW 4 Punja, PW 5 Maga and PW 14 Kalia are the witnesses to whom PW 2 Jokhi narrated the whole story after the incident. PW 14 Kalia, there after went with PW 1 Bhoorji at the Police Station, Sallepat, where the FIR was lodged. PW 8 Laxman, PW 11 Raisingh PW 12 Bhagu, PW 13 Dinesh Chandra and PW 16 Chunilal are the police witnesses. PW 8 Laxmansingh registered the FIR which was lodged by PW 1 Bhoorji. PW 11 Lalsingh recorded the statement of 2 -3 witnesses and collected the revenue record. PW 12 Bhagu Constable took the sealed packet and deposited them in the crime branch. PW 13 Dinesh Chandra Constable was posted in S.P. Office Banswara to whom sealed packets were handed over by Shri Bhagu and which was kept in his custody in sealed condition and were sent for chemical examination through Jaswant Singh. PW 16 Chunilal is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the Investigation and after Investigation presented the challan. This is the all evidence produced by the prosecution during the trial.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the eye witnesses are not reliable witnesses and appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. The next contention of the appellant is that even if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is take to be true, even then as the appellant was in possession of the land in question and the deceased was trespasser over the land and, therefore, he has not committed any offence as he has a right of private defence of property and his case is squarely covered by sections 104 and 105 IPC Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.