LUMBA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Lumba and Dunga who have been convicted under Section 325, of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional District and Sessions Judge of Udaipur.

(2.) The prosecution story was briefly this. The deceased Bhera is a cousin of the accused Lumba. It appears that there had been bad blood between them for some time on account of some dispute about land. On the morning of the 9th of June 1950 Khaju Khan P. W. was returning from village Bhuriya Kheda. On his way back, he found Bhera deceased lying injured in Dharam Talai near the boundary of Saroth. When Bnera saw Khaju passing that way, he shouted to Khaju to come to his help. Khaju went and asked Bhera what had happened. Bhera then told him that he had been beaten by Lumba and Dunga. Khaju found that Bhera's hands and feet had been fractured and he was not fit to walk. Bhera asked Khaju to take him home and thereupon Khaju removed him from that place and took him to the roadside. Then Khaju raised an alarm which brought a number of people to the scene. Among these were Teja, Hamira, Uda and Panna -- prosecution witnesses. Uda is the son of the deceased, while the others belong to different castes and live in neighbourhood. These people on arrival asked Bhera as to who had caused him injuries & Bhera told them also that he had been attacked by Lumba and Dunga accused. Thereafter some of these persons went to a. place about half a mile away, where famine relief work was going on. They found Dunga accused working there. They also found Lumba coming that way. They enquired of these persons whether they had attacked Bhera. These two persons, however, denied this. The villagers did not accept their denial and caught hold of them and took them to the place where Bhera was lying. By the time, however, they returned with the two accused Bhera was dead. Information was then sent to the police outpost and though the report that was sent by the constable on 'gust' does not mention the names of the accused, it shows that the accused had already been caught.

(3.) Both the accused denied their guilt and said that they had been implicated on account of enmity. One witness was produced on behalf of each of them to prove alibi.