UMAR DARAZ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 1038/2004 has been filed by Umar Daraz, Abdul Wahid, Ikramuddin, Abdul Kayyum, Nizamuddin and Hafiz who have been convicted vide judgment dated 16. 9. 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Baran in Sessions Case No. 154/2003 for various offences as under:- (i) Under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC : Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. (ii) Under Sections 147 and 148 IPC : One year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. (iii) Under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC : Six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. (iv) Under Section 324 read with 149 IPC : Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IN S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 1075/2004, filed by Jagdish, Mool Chand, Brijmohan, Chhotulal and Rampratap, all the five accused appellants have been convicted vide judgment dated 29. 9. 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Baran in Sessions Case No. 153/2003 for the offences asunder:- (i) Under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC : Seven year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment to further undergo five months rigorous imprisonment. (ii) Under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC : Two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two moths rigorous imprisonment. (iii) Under Section 148 IPC : Two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. (iv) Under Section 323 IPC : Six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing in D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 1038/2004 Umar Daraz and others vs. State of Rajasthan has tried to submit that Jagdish and others were the aggressors and the appellants inflicted injuries exercising the right of private defence relating to the property. It was submitted that the accused wanted to prevent Jagdish (the deceased) and others from dumping stones on their land and they were assaulted as a result of which they received injuries. In the instant case, concededly there is no evidence by way of any document to suggest that the land where the stones were being dumped by Jagdish (the deceased) and others belonged to Umar Daraz or any other appellants. At the same time, there is no evidence that the land where the stones were being dumped was in possession of the appellants which possession the appellants sought to protect. On the contrary, the evidence is to the effect that land was government land where Jagdish and Others were wanting to construct a public lavatory. Thus in the instant case,when the land was neither owned nor in the possession of the accused appellant, it cannot be said that any case of right of self defence of property arose in favour of the appellants. The accused have also not in their defence put any suggestion to the prosecution witnesses in this regard.