HARI NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two criminal appeals, one by appellant Hari Narayan and another by Vijay Gautam have been filed against the judgment and order dated 22. 2. 99 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bundi, thereby convicting and sentencing the accused appellants in the manner stated below: Appellant Hari Narayan + Under Sec. 302 IPc Life imprisonment. Under Sec. 452 IPc Five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine Rs. 1000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year Appellant Vijay Gautam + Under Sec. 307 IPc Seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- Under Sec. 452 IPc Five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of these two appeals are that on 7. 6. 97 at 12. 40 PM, PW 6 Kailash Chand Sharma submitted a written report Ex. P/3 at P. H. C. , Kapren alleging therein that his house is situated near the house of appellant Hari Narayan. Some dispute as regards `chabutari' was going on between the parties. As a consequence of the said dispute, on the day of incident, at about 12 in the noon, when the complainant along with his mother and sisters were sitting in the room, appellants Hari Narayan and Vijay Gautam entered inside his room. It was alleged that appellant Hari Narayan, with an intention to kill his father, inflicted a knife blow on the stomach of his father, while appellant Vijay Gautam inflicted a knife blow on his mother. The accused also intended to stab him when he tried to intervene. However, he managed to save himself. The injured were removed to the hospital and were admitted there.

(3.) AT the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting accused Bablu @ Janardan and Narain of the offences charged with, found the accused appellants guilty for causing death of deceased and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as already indicated hereinabove. Hence these two appeals by the appellants.