LAWS(RAJ)-2001-5-126

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KANWAR LAL AND

Decided On May 30, 2001
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Appellant
V/S
KANWAR LAL AND 10 OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were the accused on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Aklera (Distt. Jhalawar) bearing Sessions Case No. 16 of 1996. THEy were found guilty, convicted and sentence as under- Name of the accused appellant Convicted under Section Sentenced awarded 1. Kanwar Lal S/o Mohan Lal 302/149 IPC Death sentence and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default to undergo one year RI) 2. Mangilal S/o Mohan Lal 3. Harak Chand @ Harchand s/o Kanwar Lal 4. Pyarji S/o Kanwar Lal 148 IPC One year RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default to further undergo one months RI) 5. Gangaram S/o Ram Ratan 6. Hari Singh S/o Ram Ratan 7. Sheo Singh S/o Ram Ratan 8. Chhitar S/o Hari Kishan Three months RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default to further undergo one month RI) 9. Nenu Lal S/o Issar 10. Chhitar S/o Mangi Lal 11. Shyam Lal S/o Amar Singh 325/149 IPC Five years RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default to further undergo one month RI) 323/149 IPC Six months RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default to further undergo one month RI) 12. Har Kishan S/o Shyam Lal 302/149 IPC Life imprisonment & fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default to undergo one year RI) 13. Chhitar S/o Mangi Lal Dabri 14. Gulab Chand S/o Kanwar Lal 148 IPC One year RI and fine of Rs. 1000 (in default to further undergo one month RI) 15. Sunder Lal S/o Issar 16. Nathu Lal S/o Dhuli Lal 17. Nenu Lal S/o Dhuli Lal 342 IPC Three months RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default to further undergo one month RI) 18. Bhura S/o Babru 19. Phool Chand S/o Babru 20. Babu Lal s/o Babru 325/149 IPC Five years RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default to further undergo one month RI) 21. Daula s/o Babru 22. Kanwar Lal s/o Prabhulal 23. Phool Chand @ Phool Singh s/o Mangilal 323/149 IPC Six months RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default to further undergo one month RI) 24. Nathu s/o Amarji All the sentence were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge Aklera made reference (bearing Death Reference No. 2/1999) under Section 366 Cr. P. C. for confirmation of death sentence awarded to accused appellants Kanwar Lal s/o Mohan Lal, Mangi Lal s/o Mohan Lal, Harak Chand @ Harchand s/o Kanwar Lal, Pyarji s/o Kanwar Lal, Gangaram s/o Ram Ratan, Hari Singh s/o Ram Ratan, Sheo Ram s/o Mangilal, Chhitar s/o Hari Kishan, Nenu Lal s/o Issar, Chhitar s/o Mangi Lal Chauhan and Shyam Lal s/o Amar Singh, who also assailed the findings of the learned trial Judge alongwith thirteen others, by preferring two appeals under section 374 (2) Cr. P. C. bearing Nos. D. B. Cr. (Jail) Appeal No. 749/1999 and D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 761/1999. During the pendency of these appeals, another appeal by all the twenty four appellants was filed which was treated as defective and entered as D. B. Criminal Appeal (Defect) No. 508/1999 ). We ordered to tag it with the other appeals.

(3.) SUNDER Lal (PW. 17) is also an injured eye witness. Injury report of SUNDER Lal is Ex. P. 11 according to which he sustained two abrasions measuring 3/4 on Index finger and Partial region and fracture over right palm vide X ray report (Ex. P. 12 ). In his deposition SUNDER Lal stated that on being informed by Karan Singh that Jamna was beaten, he alongwith Ramratan, Daula, Phool Singh and Hari Singh had gone in search of Jamna. On the way of village Parthipura the incident had taken place. In the beginning Chhitars, three in number, two were the sons of Mangilal and, father's name of the third was Hari Kishan along with Hari Singh, Ganga Ram, Nannu, Harchand, Sheo Ram, Gulabchand, Pyara and Kanwar Lal came. Kanwar Lal was armed with Ballam and Sheo Ram was having sword and all other nine persons were armed with Farsis. They started inflicting the blows. Thereafter other accused joined them. He could not see the injuries on the persons of the deceased because of the crowd but Chhitar inflicted Farsi blow on his head. In his cross- examination SUNDER lal stated that he did not know as to two caused injury to whom. He further deposed that Chhitar inflicted injury on his person from the sharp side of Farsi. The incident had occurred on the way. At the time of institution of report they did not know the names of assailants.