RAJAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgmenet of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.03.1992 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.60/1991 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. It is to be noted that co-accused-Shri Hakim Singh has been acquitted from the offences under Sections 307/34 and Section 323 IPC.

(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that on the basis of "Parcha-Bayan" of injured-PW2-Shri Chandan Singh, FIR No.189/1991 came to be registered at Police Station Sewar (District Bharatpur) on 26.04.1991 in which it was alleged that on 23.04.1991 at about 9.30-10.00 a.m. when the complainant-injured was in his field and was sitting under the tree of 'Babool' at that time accused-appellant-Shri Rajan was cutting the tree of the complainant which was objected by the complainant on which the appellant went to his house and after some time he came back alongwith his father-Shri Hakim Singh-the acquitted accused and the appellant inflicted an injury on the head of the complainant by an axe. It was further averred that acquitted accused-Shri Hakim Singh also inflicted injuries to the wife of the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the "Parcha-Bayan" of the complainant was recorded on the date of incident i.e. on 23.04.1991 at about 2.10 p.m. when he was under treatment in Male Surgical Ward Bad No.26, General Hospital, Bharatpur, however, the formal FIR No.189/1991 for the offence under Section 324 IPC was registered on 26.04.1991 when injury and x-ray report were obtained. During investigation evidence was collected and charge-sheet was filed against both the accused. Accused-appellant Shri Rajan was charged for the offence under Section 307 IPC whereas acquitted-accused-Shri Hakim Singh was charged for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 and for offence under Section 323 IPC. To support the charges, prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas the accused denied the allegation and the evidence of the prosecution and specifically stated that they have been falsely implicated by the reasons as stated by them. In defence, statement of DW1-Shri Avtar Singh was recorded. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and evaluating and appreciating the evidence available on record passed the impugned judgment and order.

(3.) Assailing the appellate judgment and order, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following grounds:-