RUKKU; SUBBAN; FAJRU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per the case of the prosecution, Balbir Singh (PW7) had lodged the report (Ex.P6) at Police Station Tapukada, District Alwar on 23/04/1996 at 9.15 a.m. stating that on the same date i.e. the date of the occurrence at about 8.00 a.m., 28 accused persons namely; Rukku, Nanda, Hasam, Kasam, Kalu, Jahariya, Juhruddin, Jomu, Subban, Basira, Ismalli, Majru, Sarmu, Jumma, Rujdar, Isab, Akbari, Hasanbasiri, Majji, Farida, Asubi, Rasmeena, Jameela, Bhajji, Hajara, Jatuni, Gunnak Kasai and Umardeen Kasai came and murdered his younger brother Resham Singh. All the accused were sent for trial in the case arising out of FIR No.113/1996 registered at Police Station Tapukada, District Alwar for offence u/Ss.147, 148, 149, 341 and 307 IPC and Sections 5/8(1), 8(2) and 9(2) of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995.

(2.) THE trial court vide impugned -judgment dated 04/02/2006 acquitted 22 co -accused of the appellants by returning a finding that Fajru S/o Mauja Mev, Juhruddin S/o Isab Mev, Subban S/o Muhuru Mev and Rukku S/o Dalveer Mev have committed the murder of Resham Singh and thus, they are guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. However, these accused -appellants were acquitted of the charge for offence u/Ss.147, 148, 149 and 341 IPC as well as Sections 5/8(2) and 9(2) of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995. Having convicted the appellants for above offences, the trial court sentenced the accused -appellants, as under: -

(3.) SUFFICE it to say that no accused in statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C. has pleaded right of self -defence or has given any version further while conducting cross -examination of the witnesses. No suggestion has been given that Juhruddin had suffered injuries in the occurrence at the hands of the prosecution witnesses. We need not examine the contention raised regarding complete right of self -defence of person of the accused as during the course of arguments, Shri R.K. Mathur, learned senior counsel appearing for appellants Subban, Fajru and Juhruddin and Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for appellant Rukku have modulated their submissions and have canvassed that the right to defend property vested in the appellants and they have exercised the same. Taking note of the arguments raised before us, we shall decide D.B. Cr.Appeal No.158/2006 : Rukku Vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Cr.Appeal No.159/2006 : Subban Vs. State of Rajasthan and D.B. Cr.Appeal No.160/2006 : Fajru and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan together, since all these three appeals assail the same impugned -judgment rendered by trial court, they are being decided by this common judgment.