CHHOTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.5.199 1, passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 148,307/149 and 326/1491.P.C. and sentenced each of the accused to undergo two yearsT rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo fifteen days rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C.; five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo fifteen days rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and three yearsT rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo fifteen days rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 326/149 I.p.C.

(2.) Accused-appellants were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, for the offences under Sections 148,307, alternatively under Sections 307/149, 326 alternatively under Section 326/149 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.8.1989, Mohammed Hafiz, who is an illiterate person engaged in the labour-work of cutting the stones, in the morning, at about 7.30 a.m., had gone to Mehndi Bag on a vicky-moped to call his sister-in-law. When he reached near Ountwala Lane near the mosque, accused Yusuf Hidayat alarmed Ismail, Chhota, Hamid, Wahid, Yakub, Yusuf Hussain, Kallu and Wadu - the members of the unlawful assembly, who were sitting in Noor Hotel sitaated at Mehendi Bag, Tonk, and were armed with swords etc. On seeing Mohammed Hafiz, all these persons came there and with an intention to kill Mohammed Hafiz, inflicted injuries on his person. This incident was witnessed by Mumtaz, Majid Khan and some other persons. When Hafiz tried to run towards the hospital, he fell down in the Chowk on account of the injuries received by him, where the traffic policeman used to stand. Bashir took the injured to the hospital. The beating was given to Hafiz by the accused-appellants on account of some litigatioos between the parties pertaining to some land. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined sixteen witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in their defence. The learned trial Court, after trial, convicted and sentenced. The accused-appellants as stated above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged so far as the incident is concemed. The only grievance raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that from the admitted facts of the prosecution case, the case against the accused appellants does not travel beyond Section 326/149 I.P.C. and the learned lower Court was not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, none of the members of the alleged unlawful assembly had any intention to cause death of Mohammed Hafiz. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Court below and submitted that from the case of the prosecution, the intention of the accused-appellants for causing the death of Hafiz is very much clear and the judgment passed by the learned lower Court does not require any interference.