DHANNI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above two appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur dated 2-5-1970 by which he convicted Dhanni under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The co-accused Tota. Nasira, Juma, Subhan and Patri were, however, acquitted of all the charges. Aggrieved by his conviction Dhanni has filed appeal to this Court which has been registered as D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 337/70. So also dissatisfied with the order of acauittal passed in favour of the other five accused, the State has filed appeal and the same has been registered as D-B. Criminal Appeal No. 768/71. At this stage, we may mention that during the pendencv of these appeals. Tota has died. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State affainst Tota has abated and we are therefore, only concerned with the five accused, namely Dhanni, Nasira, Juma, Subhan and Patri.

(2.) THERE is a field Khasra No. 476 called 'bandhwala Khet' situated in village Chulhera. This field originally belonged to Shivram. The prosecution case is that in Samwat 2025 Shivram sold away this field to Bholisin? P. W. 3 and the deceased Gabdu used to cultivate it as a tenant of Bholising. It appears that there was a dispute between Bholisins on the one hand and the accused Tota on the other regarding the ownership and possession over this field. On 7th December 1968 at about 9 in the morning, it is alleged by the prosecution that P. W-2 Govind Singh and P. W, 5 Nathisingh, who are closelv related to P. W. 3 Bholising inasmuch as Govind Singh is son of Bholisineh and Nathising is uncle of Bholisinsh. went to the field in auestion with a bullock-cart for loading and bringing their share of fodder from Gabdu who actually cultivated the field. Gabdu used to reside in a neighbouring village Digcholi and Govindsingh went to bring him at the field. Gabdu also arrived at the field with a bullock-cart and Govindsingh and Nathi-singh on the one hand and Gabdu on the other divided the heap of fodder lvine in the field and started loading the same in their respective carts. At this stape, all the six accused came to the field. It is stated that Nasira. Subhan and Dhanni had 'pharsis' whereas Tota. Patri and Juma had lathis. It may also be mentioned here that Nasira, Juma. Subhan and Dhanni are the sons of Tota, whereas Patri was sympathiser of Tota- The Prosecution storv proceeds that Subhan caught hold of Gabdu by hand and stopped him loading the cart with fodder whereupon Govindsingh protested and sot the hand of Gabdu released from Subhan. On this, it is alleged Dhanni Have two blows with the 'dharsi' he had in his hand on the head and lee of Gabdu and the rest of the accused also beat him after he had fallen to the ground. Hearing the noise, P- W. 4 Prahlad who was in his field nearby, came to the rescue of the complainant's party but Dhanni inflicted two blows with the 'pharsi' on Prahlad's head also. Seeing this. Govind Singh tried to run awav, but Tota dealt a blow with a lathi on the left knee of Govind Singh and Tota, Dhanni, Subhan and Nasira also chased Govind Singh. It is then said that Juma and Patri eave blows with lathis to Nathi. At this time P. W. 1 Balmukand was coming on a mare from the direction of the village and Govind Singh asked him to go back as a Quarrel had taken place and savins so. Govind Sineh ran towards the village, but Tota, Dhanni, Subhan and Nasira surrounded Balmukand and beat him with lathis and 'pharsis'. Thereafter Govind Singh lodged a written first information report of the occurrence at Police Station Deeg situated at a distance of seven miles from village Chulhera at 4-30 p. m. That report has been placed on record and marked Ex. P-l. All the six accused were tried in due course, by the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) THE defence of the accused in short, is that Shivram had sold the field in question 8 to 10 years before the occurrence to Tota who was in actual Possession pi the field in question on the date of the incident and that the complainant's party had wrongfully come on the field to steal away the fodder lying there-All the accused have, however, denied having beaten any of the complainants. The accused also examined three witnesses in defence.