DURGA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, Durgalal was tried by learned Sessions Judge, Tonk for offence under Sections 447, 302 and alternatively under Sec. 302 read with 34 IPC, 323. Penal Code and alternatively for offence under Sec. 323 Penal Code read with 34 Penal Code along with other co-accused Nand Lal, Bhanwarlal and Shreenarain. By his judgment dated 30.10.1982 he acquitted Shreenarain and Nand Lal of all the charges and acquitted Bhanwarlal of offence under Sections 447, 302 and 302 read with 74 IPC. He acquitted Durgalal of offence under Sections 447, 302 and 302 read with 34 IPC. However, he convicted Durgalal of offence under Sec. 323 and 304 part II. Penal Code and Bhanwarlal for offence under section 323, IPC. Bhanwarlal was sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 200.00 and in default to under go further rigorous imprisonment of one month for an offence under section 323 IPC. Appellant Durgalal was sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500.00 for offence under Sections 403 part II, IPC. In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for three months. For offence under Sec. 323, Penal Code he was sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs. 200.00 and in default of payment of fine to under go further simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by this, Durgalal has come in appeal. It may be stated that Bhanwarlal has not appealed against his conviction and sentence.

(2.) In a nut shell the prosecution story as found established by the learned Sessions Judge is that on 28-8-198J at about 8.30 a. m. the appellant Durgalal along with co-accused Shreenarain, Nandlal and Bhanwarlal went to plough the field known as "Dagarwali Zamin" situated in village Mauga Karwada. Shree narain and Nandlal started ploughing the field while Durgalal and Bharwarlal stood guard with lathies in their hands. Deceased Ram Narain, PW-1 Gopi and PW-3 Bhanwarlal were close relations of the accused persons and they also had a share in the said field. This land was undivided between the parties, however, deceased Ram Narain, PW-1 Gopi, PW-3 Bhanwarlal were unhappy with the action of the appellant and his companions and they went to the spot to remonstrate with the appellant and his companions and to ask them that they should not plough the land. It appears that some sort of scuffle took place between Ram Narain deceased and Shreenarain accused. An assault took place on Ram Narain and he died as a result thereof. The prosecution story, however found established by the learned trial Judge was that none of the accused persons intended to cause death of deceased Ram Narain. The learned Judge, found that the accused Shreenarain and Nand Lal did not commit any assault on deceased Ram Narain and his companions. However, he was of the view that the appellant Durgalal caused a lathi blow on the head of deceased Ram Narain and he further caused some simple injuries to the deceased. He was of the view that Bhanwarlal caused simple injuries to the deceased and his companions. Upon such findings he convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

(3.) In the present appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence in this case. According to him, the appellant and his companions had a right to plough the field and they went there in exercise of such right. The trouble started because the deceased Ram Narain and his companions did not permit the appellants companions to plough the field and scuffle took place between Shreenarain and Ram Narain. He submits that from the prosecution evidence itself, it is abundantly proved that first of all the deceased Ram Narain caused a lathi blow to Shreenarain and thereupon in exercise of right of private defence of person and property an assault was made on the deceased. He submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is vague and discrepant and it is difficult to say that it was the present appellant Durgalal who had caused injuries to deceased Ram Narain on the head. The prosecution story shows that Bharwarlal had also assaulted Ram Narain by lathi on the head. Hence, it was difficult to say as to who was responsible for the fatal blow/blows on the head of the deceased.