STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KHAYALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-State has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dtd. 5/8/2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Alwar, whereby he has acquitted all the accused respondents for the offences mentioned as under:-

(2.) During the pendency of the present appeal, accused respondent Nos.1, 3 & 6 - Khayali, Rewarram and Badri have expired and therefore, appeal was abated against them and now, the appeal survives only against accused respondent Nos.2, 4, 5 & 7 to 10 - Chuttan, Puran, Rampratap, Ramjilal, Harikishan, Murari and Lichaman.

(3.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 14/7/1997, complainant - Mahadeva (PW-1) lodged a report (Exhibit-P1) before the SHO, Police Station, Tehla stating that on 13/7/1997 at about 8:00 am he himself, his brother - Badriya and Gulla Ram were sitting at Peepliwala Kuwa and at that time, accused - Moharlal, Rampratap, Ramjilal, Rewar and Badri came with deadly weapons and began to dismantle the boundary wall (Doli) of their field. When they objected, Moharpal gave a blow on his head. When Badri and Gulla tried to save him, then all the accused respondents caused injuries to his brother, upon which, Gulla, brother of the complainant, expired on the next day. On the basis of the said report, police registered FIR No.111/1997 (Exhibit-P21) and after conclusion of investigation, filed a chargesheet against the accused respondents. The case was committed to the learned Trial Court. After committal of the case, charges were framed by the learned Trial Court against the accused respondents. The accused denied the charges and sought trial, upon which, 13 witnesses were examined and 46 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. Explanation of the accused respondents was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. In Defence, statement of Dr. Shiv Shankar Sharma (DW-1) was recorded and 10 documents were exhibited. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both the sides, came to the conclusion that the incident took place on the spur of the movement. It was a cross case. The respondent side i.e. accused in this case had also filed an FIR, prior to the FIR lodged by the complainant of this case. The learned Trial Court also observed that both the sides have sustained injuries and acquitted the accused respondents, aggrieved by which, the appellant - State has preferred the instant appeal.