SAMPAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants Nanga and Prabhu have been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The other appellants were convicted under Sec. 302/149 I.P.C. and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant Gyarsa and Moolia were convicted under Sec. 324 I.P.C. and the remaining appellants were convicted under Sec. 324/149 I.P.C. and they were sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. All the appellants were convicted under Sections 147 and 323 I.P.C. and on the first count they were sentenced to one years rigorious imprisonment and on the second count to six months rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The incident in this case took place on 2.9.72 at about 10 or 11 A.M. The appellants are the residents of village Urdain and the complainant party are the residents of village Bichpuri. The most of the appellants are Mali by caste, one is Brahmin and one is also Khati by caste. The members of the complainant party are Gujars by caste. The occurrence has taken place on account of construction of Dol on the land through which three passages pass, one leading to village Urdain, the other leading to Gurachandji and the third leading to the well of village Bichpuri. The case is that at a2. The prosecution case in brief is that on July 12, 1973 at about 9 P.M. at Dharamshala situated in village Santpura, a Ramila party was singing filmy songs. The Ramlila was over a day earlier and it ended with Bhog ceremony. It is said that the deceased Zeetsingh came and objected to the singing of such songs. Thereupon, Pavitrasingh and Gurudeepsingh sons of Munshi Singh who were listening to the songs, asked Jeet Singh as to who he is to prevent singing of songs. Then wrangle took place between them and Zeetsingh inflicted a lathi on the head of Pavitrasingh and they grappled with each other. Zeetsingh then caught hold of Gurdeepsing by his lock of hair. Then both Pavitrasingh and Gurdeepsingh grappled with Zeetsingh and his hair were also caught hold by both of them. According to the prosecution, at that time, the appellant came armed with a 12 bore double barrel gun. It is said that Sukhdeo Singh (informant) and Jalawar Singh (P W.3), who were intervening and separating them, made themselves away and at that time, it is alleged that Gurdeepsingh and Pavitra Singh exhorted their father to fire a shot. Thereupon, Munshi Singh fired a shot, which hit Zeetsingh on the left side. Zeetsingh fell down. The persons assembled ran away from the spot. According to Sukhdeosingh, he went to the house of Zeetsingh and informed his mother. Zeetsinghs brother Baldeosingh was not available. Zeetsinghs mother informed that Baldeosingh had gone to Sri Ganganagar and he might have come to Nukcra and so, he may proceed to Nukera. Sukhdeosingh then went to Nukera He sent his brother Gurbachansingh to find out Baldeosingh at Sangariya. Two other persons viz., Gurdeosingh ad Gurbuxsingh were sent to Dholnagar to find out Baldeosingh. Baldeosingh was found at Dholnagar and he came to Santpura. The occurrence was narrated to him. They saw Zeetsingh lying dead. Govind Kotwal and two other persons were left near the dead body and Sukhdeosingh went to Sangariya to lodge the report. The report Ex. P was lodged on the same night at 2. 45 A.M. A case under s. 302/34 I.P.C. was registered by Niranjansingh (P.W.5). He proceeded to the spot and conducted spot investigations. He also visited the house of the appellant Munshisingh and recovered a double barrel muzzle loading gun. The investigation subsequent changed hands. It may be stated here that on July 17, 1973, Harnek Singh, the brother of the appellant Munshisingh made a complaint to Dy. S.P. that the appellant has been falsely implicated and the killer of Zeetsingh is Gurbachansingh. After investigation, challan was presented against Gurbachansingh. At this stage, a complaint was filed by Sukkdeosingh and after holding the enquiry, he was also committed to the court of Sessions for trial, Both the accused were tried by the learned Sessions Judge. In sessions case No. 68 of 1974, Gurbachansingh was acquitted and in sessions case No.281 of 1974, Pavitrasingh and Gurdeepsingh were acquitted and the appellant Munshisingh was found guilty of having shot Zeetsingh dead. About 8 or 9 A. M., the accused persons namely ; Gyarsa, Nanga, Bhajan, Ramnath and Molyan resident of Urdain planned to construct a dol (wall). Sanwalia (P. W. 5) made request to them not to raise a wall and obstruct the pathways, his request was acceded to and the said accused persons went back to the village. It is said that all the accused persons thereafter came back, armed with lathies and Farsa and also with spades and started raising the wall. They raised the voice of 'Bala Ji Ki Jai'. Ramdhan the nephew of Sanwalia came there. Sanwalia was also present at that time. He again implored the appellants for not raising the wall but there was no effect. The accused persons ran after him but he entered into bada' and saved himself. Ramdhan tried to save himself but he was surrounded by the accused persons. Nanga, Prabhu inflicted lathi blows on the head of Ramdhan. Farsa blow was also caused to Ramdhan by one of the assailants. Sanwalia raised an alarm to save Ramdhan. Thereupon, Gujarmal, Ramniwas, Ramroop and Sardar rushed to the scene of occurrence to rescue Ramdhan. All these four persons were assaulted by Prabhu, Moolia, Gordhan, Ramswaroop, Moharu, Sampat, Harikishan, Ramjilal, and Ramdhan Khati appellant oxhorted to kill all of them. Ramdhan received serious injuries on his head. He was removed from the spot in a cot. First he was taken to the Bala Ghat hospital but the medical officer was not available, thereafter he was taken to Todabhim. The other injured persons also went to the hospital. The injuries of all the injured persons were examined at the Todabhim hospital. Sanwaliya (P. W 5) lodged the report Ex. P. 1 at the police station Toda Bhim. He submitted the injury report of Ramdhan, Sardar, Gujarmal, Ramniwas and Ramswaroop. On the report case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 325 I.P.C. was registered by the S. H. O. Toda Bhim, Shri Govind Singh (P. W. 10). Govind Singh (P. W. 10) proceeded to the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. P. 2. The victim Ramdhan died at Jaipur hospital, on 7. 9. 72 at 3.55 P. M. Autopsy on the dead body was conducted on 8. 9. 72. Thereafter the case was converted under Sec. 302 I.P.C. Further investigation was conducted by P. W. 9 Shri Arjunlal. The accused persons were arrested and recoveries were effected on the information and at the instance of some of the accused persons. After completion of usual I investigation, charge-sheet was presented against the accused persons and the accused persons were committed for trial to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur - City. Charges were read over and explained to the accused persons f but they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses. The statements of the accused persons were recorded in which they denied the prosecution case and stated that they had put up wall with a view to prevent cattle from damaging their crop. Villagers of Bichpuri were annoyed by it. About 25 to 30 in number, came armed and opened an attack on them. One Nanga had brought the break-fast, he too was beaten and the report of the occurrence Ex. P. 12 was lodged by Gyarsa at the police station at 5 P. M. One witness Mangi was examined as D.W. in defence. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments, convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid. With regard to the common object, he recorded inconsistent findings. As regards the plea of the accused that an attack was opened on them and they sustained injuries, the learned Additional Sessions Judge expressed the opinion that P. W. 6 Shri Ram, P. W. 7 Shri Ramphal and P. W. 8 Shriphal saw the accused persons from distance, therefore, they were not in a position to see the injuries if any caused to the accused persons. Statements of the injured witnesses, however, do not speak of any injured on the person of the accused party and in absence of any proof that the injuries were caused in the same incident, no explanation was required from the prosecution witnesses. Thus it appears that the plea of the accused did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge. As a necessary corollary thereof, the learned Additional Sessions Judge entered into conviction of the accused persons.

(3.) We have heard Shri Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. L. S. Udawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and we have perused the relevant record.