CHHAJJU KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No, 2, Alwar, dated Sept. 7, 1981, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under :

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this case are that on Oct. 20, 1980 at 6.30 p.m. a report was lodged at police station Rajgarh scribed by Vijal Singh at the instance of Smt. Shitabi, PW. 3 and Smt. Deeni PW. 6. This report was presented at the police station by one Soorajmal. The original document scribed by Vijal Singh is Ex.P. 2 while the report taken down in proforma is Ex.P. 25. According to the report a dispute took place in village Bileta between Mussa Khan Meo, Atru Khan Meo, Mallu Khan Meo, Jumme Khan, Subbe Khan and Chhajju. This incident clearly took place at the house of Mussa Khan ; wherein Dhundhal Khan and Sardar Khan lost their lives. The dead body of both the deceased was lying on the spot. The incident is alleged to have been seen by Haiti Khan Meo, Nadru, Kesar Singh etc. who were present at the place of the incident. It was mentioned in the report that report is taken down at the instance of Smt. Shitabi and Deeni wives of Dhundhal and Sardar deceased respectively. On receipt of this report a case was registered for offence under sections 302/147/148/149 IPC. Soorajmal and Rehmat who had taken the report to the police station were interrogated by the police and on interrogation they said that they had also reached the place of occurrence soon-after the incident. They stated that Mussa and Dhundhal were real brothers and are neighbour. They got an engine fitted in their well in partnership and some dispute arose regarding distribution. It is because of this that the incident had taken place in which Dhundhal and Sardara lost their lives. The police sent the deceased Dhundhal and Sardara for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Rajendra Singh Kaushik, PW. 19, who was In-charge, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Malakheda. He found the following injuries on the person of the deceased Sardara :

(3.) The prosecution in support of its case examined 23 witnesses and the accused none. They denied the occurrence when examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge after appraisal of the evidence acquitted the accused Mussa Khan of all the charges levelled against him, but convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated above. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence this appeal was preferred.