UMLI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.11.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, convicting the appellants of offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -. They have also been convicted of the offence under Section 325/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. They have also been convicted of the offence under Sections 148 and 323/149 I.P.C.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that on 15.7.1988, PW -2 Smt. Kishna had gone to her field alongwith his minor son Ashok. Her field is adjacent to the field of accused Teja Ram. Appellant Teja Ram blocked the way passing through her field. This was objected by her deceased husband Chhagan Lal, when he visited the field in the evening alongwith PW -3 Bajrang Singh. Teja Ram gave him no care reply. On his call, Teja Ram's sons Mohan, Likhma and one Dhanna Ram s/o Kalu Ram arrived. The wife of Likhma Ram also accompanied them. She took cut a 'Gandasi' from the heap of sticks and passed on to Likhma Ram. All other accused persons were armed with 'Chausangi'. Appellant Teja Ram challenged and all the accused persons attacked on her husband. In order to save, she lay on her husband. It is alleged that a 'Parcha Bayan' of PW -2 Smt. Kishna was recorded by PW -13 Munshi Ram, S.H.O., Police Station, Ratangarh. The said statement was recorded in the Government Hospital at 8.50 P.M. On the basis of the said 'Parcha Bayan'. F.I.R. Ex.P.30 was registered. Chhagan Lal succumbed to the injuries and, as such, offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was added. The police prepared the inquest and sent the dead body for post mortem. After usual investigation, police laid chargesheet against the appellants for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 I.P.C.

(3.) ASSAILING the conviction, it is contended by Mr. Doongar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants, that the entire case is false and fabricated. It is submitted that it is difficult to comprehend that the old man of 80 years would have acted in the manner described by the prosecution. It is also submitted that there is no evidence as to which of the accused gave fatal blow on the head of deceased Chhaganlal and, as such, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 I.P.C. with the add of Section 149 I.P.C. is not sustainable. It is urged that at the most, the appellants can be convicted of the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court.