POONA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Sec. 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dtd. 23/5/1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur ('trial court') in Sessions Case No. 47/86, whereby the present accused-appellant was convicted for the offences under Ss. 307, 324 and 323 IPC; for the offence under Sec. 307 IPC, the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500,.00 in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further five months rigorous imprisonment; for the offence under Sec. 324 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200.00 in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further two months rigorous imprisonment and; for the offence under Sec. 323 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200.00, in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further two months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) As the pleaded facts would reveal, on 18/7/1985, one Bhagirath Ram (complainant) had submitted a written report before the Police Station, Lohawat alleging therein that his field was situated at Sharhad Jatawas-Lohawat. It was alleged that on that day at about 10:00 p.m., one Khanu Ram came to his field alongwith Danu Ram, Ganga Ram and Sukh Ram and Poona Ram, and while the complainant alongwith his brothers, namely, Harchand Ram and Bablu Ram was working in his field, Khanu Ram stopped them from doing so, whereupon the complainant party left the place.

(3.) At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the learned trial court, after conclusion of the trial, declined to accept the prosecution case regarding the accused persons being the members of an unlawful assembly and criminal trespass by them, and rightly so; however, despite all the charges having been substantially disproved before the learned trial court by the accused persons on the strength of testimony of the defence witnesses, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced, amongst others, the present accused appellant, vide the impugned judgment, which runs contrary to law.