RANJIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, preferred by eleven appellants judgment dated March 20, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kekri (Ajmer) is under challenge whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Ranjit: U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 147 & 148 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment. U/s. 447 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 50/- in default to further suffer seven days simple imprisonment. U/s. 325/149 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. U/s. 324/149 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment. U/s. 323/149 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment. (1) Raju @ Rajmal, (2) Ramnath @ Sunda, (3) Mukesh, (4) Gheesa, (5) Smt. Phooli, (6) Smt. Deu @ Devli, (7) Suraj Karan (8) Jagdish, (9) Kalu and (10) Norat: U/s. 302/149 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 447 IPC: Each to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 50/- in default to further suffer seven days simple imprisonment. U/s. 325/149 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. U/s. 324/149 IPC: Each to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment. U/s. 323/149 IPC: Each to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) AS per the prosecution story on July 17, 1997 Jaipal Singh, SHO PS Bhinai (PW. 29) recorded parcha bayan of Chandu (PW. 1) wherein he stated that on that day around 9. 00 AM he along with his brother Magna (since deceased) and another brother Moola (PW. 3) had gone to their field for the purpose of sowing pulses. His wife Rukma (PW. 5) and Ratni (PW. 4) wife of Magna were also there. When they were about to commence sowing, the appellants accompanied by four more persons attacked them with axes, sticks and spades. Ranjit gave axe blow on the head of Magna, whereas other assailants assaulted the remaining members of the family. Babu Lal (PW. 2), Gopal (PW. 7) and Bajrang (PW. 8) had also arrived at the spot and witnessed the assault. The injured persons were thereafter taken to Government Hospital Bhinai where statement of Chandu (Ex. P. 1) was recorded, on the basis of which a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 447 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation the injured Magna succumbed to his injuries and offence under Section 302 IPC was further added. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge Kekri District Ajmer. Charges under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149 and 447 IPC were framed against the appellants who denied charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 30 witnesses. In the statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) FACTUAL situation of the case may deduced thus:- (i) Single injury sustained by the deceased on the head has been attributed to appellant Ranjit. Nature of injury, according to medical evidence was such that the deceased could have been saved if proper treatment would available. (ii) Agricultural land bearing khasra No. 1716 where the incident had been taken place is adjacent to the lands bearing Nos. 1714, 1715 and 1714 owned and possessed by appellant Raju. (iii) When the deceased and members of his family were about to commence sowing, they were asked by the appellants to wait till the land was measured by the Patwari. (iv) The occurrence took place without pre meditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion without taking undue advantage. (v) There was no enmity between the complainant party and the accused party. (vi) The appellants neither formed unlawful assembly nor they shared common object to commit offence.