JAGDISH AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants Jagdish, Ladu, Bamdu, Copal, Devi Lal; Shivraj, and Smt Nosar wife of Jagdish have been convicted of the offences under Sections 147, 323/149, & 325/149, I.P C., by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, by his judgment. dated 25-8-1977,. On the first count as well as on the second count, they, except Nosar, have been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and on the third count they have been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay tine of Rs. 1,00.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for oPe month, Mst Nosar has been given the benfit of probation. The accused Jagdish was acquitted of the offence under Sec. 307, and the other accused persons were acquitted of the offence under Sec. 307/ 49, I.P.C.

(2.) In brief, the prosecution case is that at Pander there is a 'Bara'. According to the prosecution case the Bara' was purchased by Jagdish son Hardeo Jat for a sum of Rs 475.00 in an auction held by the Panchayat. As per the accused appellant Jagdish son of Gokul. he had purchased half of this Bara and was in possession of western half of the Bara. Thus, whole of the Bara was claimed by the complainant party as their own, whereas one half of it was claimed by the appellant Jagdish. It is said that on 27-9-1975. at about 3.45 P.M., when the complainant party was putting its maize crop brought from their field, the accused party came armed with 'lathis' and exhorted that the Bara does not belong to the complainant party, so why they are putting Kadap of maize. Wordy wrangia followed. Bardu, Gopal and Ladu caught hold of Kalyan (P.W. 2) and thereafter Jagdish inflicted a 'lathe blow on the head of Kalyan and showered further blows. Hardeo son of Nanda P.W.( 4) also arrived at the scene of occurrence. The accused party inflicted 'Iathi' blows on Sukhdeo, Gatoo, Hardeo son of Dhula. Sukhdeo son of Hardeo Jat (P.W. 1) lodged a written report Ex. P/1 at the Police Station. Pander. Thereupon, a case under Sections 147, 447, and 323, I.P.C. was registered. Mangilal, S.H.O., conducted the investigation. The formal F.I.R. Ex. P/14 was drawn. He inspected the state vide memo Ex. 1/15. The accused persons were arrested. Medical examination was get conducted of the injured persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was presented against the accused persons. Charges under Sec. 107, I.P.C., against Jagdish and under Sec 307/149, I.P.C., against rests of the accused persons, were added. The accused persons were ultimately committed for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The learned Sessions Judge framed the changes and recorded the plea of denial of the accused persons. At the trial, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Sukhdeo, P.W. 2 Kalyan, P.W. 3 Dr Ved Prakash Gupta, P.W. 4 Hardeo, P.W. 5, Mst. Gatto, P.W. 6 Amritlal Parmar and P.W. 7 Mangilal. The statements of 'he accused persons were recorded, in which they denied the prosecution case. The accused Jagdish stated that half of the Bara belongs to him A false case has been foisted against the accused persons. In fact he was beaten by the complainant party. He received injuries on his head and he was medically examined. Vaidyanath Jat and Hussain Khan rescued him and he also reported the matter at the police station. On the other hand, the accused persons examined Dr. Chriranjilal (D.W. 1), Umraosingh (D.W. 2), Rajmal (D.W. 3), Ramniwas (D.W. 4) and Baijnath (D.W. 5). After hearing the arguments, the learned Sessions Judge frund that there was no right of private defence to person of property available to the accused party. He proceeded on the basis that the whole of the Bara came in to tee possession of the complainant party as far back as 6-8-1975. Even as trespasser, the complainant party was in settled possession, so in such a situation, right of private defence to reason and property was not available. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused persons, as aforesaid, and acquitted them of the offences under Sec. 307, I.P.C., and 307/149, I.P.C. Dissatisfied with their convictions and sentences the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) I have heard Shri M.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellants, and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State.