HOKMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed by accused- Hokma and Bhuvana against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh dismissing the appeal against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh convicting accused-Hokma for the offence u/s. 326 Penal Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted for the offence u/s. 324/34 Penal Code and sentenced to one year's R.I. He has further been convicted for certain minor offences. Petitioner-Bhuvana has been convicted u/s. 326/34-and sentenced to two years' R.I. He has also been convicted for the offence u/s. 324 Penal Code and sentenced to one year's R.I. Both the petitioners have also been convicted for the offence u/s. 323 Penal Code and sentenced to three months' R.I. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 17.6.1989 at about 11.30 a.m., one Narayan lodged an oral FIR at Police Station, Rawatbhata stating inter alia that yesterday night at about 11.00 p.m., while he was standing beneath a tree, he was questioned by one Naru for cutting the branches of tree. This led to quarrel between them. It is alleged that after some time, Naru returned with Hokma, Bhuvana, Devi etc. Hokma gave a 'Kulhari' blow causing injury on his head. Bhuvana was carrying knife with him. He also inflicted injuries. The injured was taken to hospital. After usual investigation, police filed a charge - sheet against petitioners for the aforesaid offences. During trial the prosecution examined six witnesses. The accused-petitioners denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. They also examined two witnesses in their defence. The trial Court found the evidence of the eye- witnesses reliable corroborated from the medical evidence.

(3.) I have carefully scrutinised the material -on record. I do not find any illegality in the order of conviction for various offences, as the statements of the eye-witnesses find corroboration from the medical evidence. Thus, conviction of the petitioners for the offences referred to above deserves to be confirmed.