RAMDAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above titled appeal by 4 appellants, namely Ramdayal, Ram Singh, Dalu @ Dalchand and Bhag Chand arises out of the judgment and order dated 3. 9. 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, Alwar whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants in the following manner: Under Section 302/34 IPc To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10000/ -. Under Section 323/34 IPc To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 2500/- each. Under Section 341 IPc To undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) ON 19. 4. 99 at 8. 00 AM, Ram Dayal S/o Banshi Lal lodged a written report, Ex. P. 19 at Police Station, Kathumar, alleging therein that at 7. 00 AM he left his house for collecting gunny bags from Chunnilal Punjabi of Indira Colony. When he reached near the house of Hareti Jatav, accused Ramdayal, Dalu, Bhag Chand and Ram Singh met him. Dal Chand and Bhag Chand had Farsas in their hands, while Ram Singh had a lathi and Ramdayal had a Ballam. All the accused encircled him near the house of Hareti. He then stated that some altercation had taken place between him and the accused in the Panchayat meeting convened last night and that being the reason, the accused encircled him and started belabouring him with Farsas and Ballam. He stated that accused Bhag Chand struck first blow on his head, as a result of which he fell down on the ground and thereafter all the accused opened attack on him with Farsas and Ballam with an intention to kill him, which resulted in causing injuries on his head, hand and legs. The accused had also threatened to shoot him. Dulli S/o Chuttan, Pilli S/o Kadera and Ram Swaroop S/o Chuttan came there and saved him.

(3.) PER contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have fully supported the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court and have contended that the learned trial Judge has appreciated the prosecution evidence in true perspective and has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants and therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be maintained.