INDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated January 16,1978 whereby the learned lower court has held accused Veersingh, Bhagsingh and Bantasingh guilty of the offence under Sections 147, and 326, 323 read with Section 149 IPC. He has further held accused Indersingh Malkayat Singh, Jogendrasingh and Kartarsingh guilty of the offence under Sections 148, and 326, 324, 323 read with Section 149 IPC and has senenced all the seven accused persons to rigorous imprisonment for three years together with a find of Rs. 200/ - for offences under Sections 326, 324, 323 read with Section 149 IPC and in default to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 148 as also the offence under Section 147 IPC the above said 7 accused persons have been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment each. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The joint sentence has been recorded for all the three offences i.e. Sections 326, 324 and 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. All the accused appellants have been acquitted of the offence under Section 436 IPC.

(2.) THE facts of this case, briefly, stated are that Mst. Sito was a married wife of accused Kirpalsingh accused. She is the daughter of PW 2 Kartarsingh. It is alleged that Kirpalsingh and his mother were harassing Mst. Situ and, therefore, her father went to bring Mst. Situ. Her in -laws refused to send her with him. He, therefore, obtained a warrant under Section 100 Cr. PC and by adopting that process he secured the custody of Mst. Sito. After that Mst. Sito started living with her parents. It is alleged that Kripalsingh and her father Indersingh four to five days attempted to take back Mst. Sito by arrnging a Panchayat but Kartarsingh refused to send Mst. Sito with Kirpalsingh and his father Indersingh.

(3.) AFTER usual investigation case against all these 7 appellants was challenged in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh from where the accused persons were committed for trial to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanurnangarh. Initially all the accused persons were charged with the offence under Sections 148, and 323 and 324 read with Sections 149 and 436, IPC. However, later on a charge under Section 326 IPC read with Section 149 was also added against accused Indersingh and Malkiyat Singh. The accused persons did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial, where upon the prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313, Cr.PC. They examined two witnesses in their defence, viz., DW 1 Inder Singh accused himself and DW 2 Ram Chandra Bishnoi and Tandurwali. The accused persons have taken the plea that actually they did not go to attack the prosecution witnesses. Their sole aim was to bring back Mst. Sito who was residing at her father's house. They actually took a Panchayat to her house which was headed by Ram Chandra Chairman of the Nyaya Panch and Surayan Singh Panch. When they asked Kartar Singh to send Mst. Sito with them he demanded Rs. 2,500/ - from them. When they refused to pay the money Kartar Singh and his sons and 2 -3 other persons attacked them and in retaliation or in their right of private defence of person they also inflicted injuries to the complainant party. They have lodged a report of this incident, a certified copy of which has been marked as Ex. D 14A. On the basis of this report a case against the complainant side has been challenged in the court of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Hanurnangarh against the male injured prosecution witnesses and Jagir Singh, Jeet Singh and Balbeer Singh. After hearing the parties the learned lower court decided the case as aforesaid. It has held that actually the accused party was aggressive. It has gone to bring back Sito with them because of force. According to the learned lower court Bachan Singh has not taken part in the occurrence but actually Bhag Singh had taken part in this occurrence. It has relied on the testimony of the eye witnesses, i.e., PW 1 Harphul Singh, PW 2 Kartar Singh, PW 5 Mst. Sito, PW 6 Sarjeet Kaur, and PW 7 Jagroop Singh. It has held that this testimony of the eye witnesses out of whom persons were injured in this incident is fully corroborated by the testimony of the Medical Officers and, therefore, it has convicted and sentenced these accused -appellants as aforesaid. Aggrieved against this judgment these 7 accused -appellants have preferred this appeal.