SUKA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant. I have also perused the case diary.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are cross cases about the same incident and members of the accused party have sustained number of injuries which include grievous injuries also. It is also contended that the field of the complainant party and that of the accused are adjoining each other and as per the version of the accused the incident took place as the members of the complainant party tried to demolish the common dole and this fact gets support from the site- plan. It is also contended that as per the site plan, co- accused Chhote Lal had made gun fire from a distance of 7 Meters and that there is no injury by a sharp edged weapon on the body of the deceased to connect the accused petitioner with an injury caused by farsa. It is also contended that Ramdeo has sustained only one injury on scapular region by a sharp edged weapon. As per the EI.R. the same has been attributed to co-accused Harbir.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the accused petitioner is equally liable with the aid of Sec. 34 I.P.C. and all these questions which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage.