BHAGIRATH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, dated Nov. 11, 1975, by which the appellants were convicted and sentenced for the following offences in the under mentioned manner:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_30_LAWS(RAJ)3_1982(1).html</FRM> 1. Ram Dayal. (i) lacerated wound 11/2 x &#8533;" x &#8533;" transverse on lower jaw left side half inch away from mid line; (ii) lacerated wound 3" x 1/2 x bone deep verticle on occipital region of his scalp extending downwards from Choti region; (iii) abrasion 1" x 1/2 over spine of left scapula; (iv) contusion 1" x 1" on right shoulder anteriorly; (v) abrasion 1/10" x 1/10" on gum of left lower premolar second tooth with slight bleeding on outer part. All these injuries were simple except injury No. (ii) for which opinion was reserved for want of X-ray, and all were caused by some blunt weapon. 2. Kalua. (i) T shape lacerated wound on left side of frontal region of scalp 1/2" away from left eye brow of size 3/4' x 1/2" x bone deep with black eye left side; (ii) lacerated wound 11/2" x 1/2" x bone deep on right parietal region vertical 1" 1" away from mid-line. Both these injuries were caused by some blunt weapon. 3. Moti Ram. (i) fracture right humurous middle &#8531;rd with swelling of right arm and abrasion 1" x 1/2" with pain and crepitus and restriction of movement of the right arm; (ii) contusion 4" x 1" on right scapular region medial aspect upper part obliquely. (iii) contusion 4" x 1" on medial aspect of left scapula obliquely in the upper part. Injury No. 1 was grievous. Injuries Nos. 2 and 3 were simple. All were caused by simple weapon. Kalua, Ram Dayal and Moti Ram, injured, were suspected to have received grievous injuries and so their injuries were X-rayed by Dr. D.P. Mishra. Upon X-ray examination fracture of right mandible of Ram Dayal and a fracture of the right humurous bone of Moti and a comminuted fracture of the right frontal bone together with fracture of left frontal bone of Kalua were detected. Kalua was unconscious at the time when he was medically examined. His blood pressure was 140.190 whereas his pulse beating was 80 per minute. He was bleeding from mouth and nostrils. All other injuries found on the persons of the 6 injured were simple in nature and caused.

(2.) A report of this incident was lodged with the police at police station, Bayana, by Ramesh, complainant, on the next day of the incident at about 12.05 p.m. The police registered a criminal case on the basis of this report and took up usual investigation into the matter. They collected other necessary oral as well as documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, filed a challan against all the appellants and their companions, namely, Arjun Singh and Mst. Harbheji in the court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Bayana, under section 147, 307, 325, 323, 447 and 149, I.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate on finding a prima-facie case exclusively triable by the court of the Sessions, committed all the accused including the appellants who tried Arjun, Shri Chand, Smt. Shamanti, Hukam Chand, Smt. Harbheji and Mst. Dulari for the offence under sections 147, 447, 307, 323 and 149, I.P.C. while Bhagirath and Babulal were tried for the offence punishable under sections 147, 447, 307, 325, 323 and 325/149, I.P.C. Upon conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Judge heard arguments in the case and found all the appellants guilty of the offences mentioned above. He accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants, in the manner stated above. Aggrieved by their convictions and sentences, the appellants have preferred this appeal. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. V.S. Dave, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.B. Mathur and Mr. Heman Das, Public Prosecutors, for the State.

(3.) It has been strenuously urged before me by Mr. V.S. Dave, appearing on behalf of the appellants that the Sessions Judge committed an error in not holding the complainant party as aggressors and in not giving the appellants the benefit of the right of private defence of person and property. It was further urged that the prosecution utterly failed to prove that the incident took place in the manner and at the place described in the first information report and in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. According to his submission two different places of one and the same occurrence were mentioned in the site plans prepared in both the cross-cases by the investigating agency and so, in these circumstances, it was very difficult to hold that the appellants entered the field of Ramesh complainant and caused injuries to him and his rescuers. Another contention put forward on behalf of the appellants is that the Sessions Judge reconstructed a new case of free fight between the parties in respect of the fact that there was nothing on the record to show that both the parties were determined to fight with each other over a Babul tree standing on the boundary wall in between the two fields comprised in Khasra Nos. 223 and 224 belonging to Arjun Singh and Ramesh Chand respectively.