BHANU Vs. HAZARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals: one by the State and the other by the accused- persons arise out of the same judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar on May 24, 1975, whereby, the learned lower court has acquitted accused Sultan and Dhonkal of all the offences with which they were charged by giving them the benefit of doubt. It, however, held accused Bhanu guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. He was also convicted under Section 447, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month. Accused Surjaram and Hajari were convicted under Sections 447 and 323, I.P.C., and Mst. Shanti and Mst. Saraswati were convicted under Section 447, I.P.C. However looking to the circumstances of the case in which the offences were committed and having regard to the character of the accused and in the absence of any previous conviction recorded against them, the learned lower court has granted them the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. It has, however, acquitted all the accused-persons of the offences under Sections 302 and 302/149. I.P.C. Aggrieved against this judgment, the State has preferred appeal against all the 7 accused-persons including Mst. Shanti and Mst. Saraswati with the prayer that all the accused-persons should have been convicted of the offence under Sections 302 or 302/149, I.P.C. It may be stated here that the State's appeal was not admitted against Mst. Shanti and Mst. Saraswati but it was, however, admitted against accused Hajari, Sultan singh, Bhanuram, Surjaram and Dhonkalram. The accused Bhanu, Hajari, Surjaram, Mst. Shanti and Mst. Saraswati have also preferred appeal against their conviction.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are: that one Sheolal Jat resident of Hanumangarh town had certain fields existing in his khatadari bearing Khasras No. 128/277 and 127/278. Sheolal had three daughters from his first wife Mst. Dhapu. Their names are Mst. Shanti, Mst. Saraswati and Mst. Girdawari. After the death of Mst. Dhapu, he married to Sona Devi. Mst. Sona Devi brought with her one Brijlal, who was born to her by her earlier wed-lock. She gave birth to one daughter Bhagwati, after her marriage with Sheolal. It is alleged that after the death of Sheolal, Mst. Sona Devi came in possession of his land and out of this land, she sold killas No. 19 to 22 of field bearing Khasra No. 128/277 and killas Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Khasra No. 127/278 situated in village Chak 18 H.M.H. for a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 by a registered sale-deed Ex P. 33 and handed over possession of these 8 killas to the purchaser Sardar Malsingh son of Sardar Suchhasingh ]atsikh resident of Hanumangarh. This sale-deed was executed on January 28, 1974. It is alleged that Maliingh and his sons cultivated Killa No. 7 and sown Guwar crop in that killa of field bearing Khasra No. 127/278. On the date of the occurrence i.e. May 23, 1974, Malsinghs son Kripal Singh was in that field. At about 10 or 11 a.m., his niece Mst. Pappi aged about 10 years brought his meals. He then went inside the Kotha and started taking his meals. At that point of time, Mst. Shanti and Mst. Saraswati clime to Killa No. 7 and tried to destroy the Guwar crop sown by the complainant party. Kirpalsingh then came out of his Kotha and requested these ladies not to do so, whereupon, these ladies started abusing. It is alleged that accused Dhonkalram, Surjaram, Hajari, Bhanu and Sultansingh were hiding themselves in the Khala situated near that field. It is alleged that accused Sultan Singh and Dhonkalram were armed with guns. On seeing this Kripal Singh went inside the Kotha. Mst. Pappi, however, went and informed Mukhtiar Singh who was in their Dhani. Mukhtiar Singh immediately rushed to the spot and when he reached Killa No. 7, two fires were shot at him by accused Dhonkal and Sultan Singh. However, he was not hit. Mukhtiar Singh fell himself down. Thereafter, all the accused-persons came out and accused Hajari, Surjaram and Bhanu started beating him with lath is and Gandasis. Accused Hajari and Surjaram had Gandasis with them whereas accused Bhanu was carrying a lathi with him. Mst. Shanti and Mst. Saraswati were also present at the spot. Sardara Singh who is father-in-law of Kripal Singh and Mukhtiar Singh also came at the spot and tried to intervene but the accused-persons did not desist from beating. Mukhtiar Singh who became unconscious after receiving injuries on his head, was then shifted to Hanumangarh Hospital, where his injuries were examined and he was also treated for his injuries by Doctor Parasmal Jam Later, he was shifted to Sri Ganganagar Hospital, where he died on May 27, 1974 at about 6.40 p.m. His postmortem was conducted by Dr. Ramlal Goyal. Certain recoveries were effected on the information of the accused-persons after their arrest and after usual investigation, the case against the accused-persons was challaned in the court or learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hanumangarh, from where, it was committed for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The learned Sessions Judge charged the accused-persons as under: 1. Hazari under Sections 447, 302, 149, 147 and 148, I.P.C. 2. Sultan Singh under Sections 447, 302, 149, 336, 147, 148, I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Bhanuram under Sections 447, 302, 149, 147 and 148, I.P.C. Surjaram under Sections 447, 302, 147 and 148, I.P.C. Dhonkalram under Sections 447, 302, 336, 147 and 148, I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Mst. Shanti under Section 447, I.P.C.

(3.) Mst. Saraswati under Section 447, I.P.C. The accused-persons did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial, whereupon, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the accused-persons were recorded. They have taken a plea that Killa No. 7 was in their possession as it belonged to them. Mst. Shanti and Mst. Saraswati were in that field alongwith accused Hajari and Sultan Singh. However, accused Hajari and Sultan Singh went to cultivate another killa and these two ladies were left there after taking their meals. On seeing them, Malsingh, Kripal Singh and Mukhtiar Singh etc. came there and started beating them, whereupon, Hajari and Sultan Singh reached there. They requested them not to beat the ladies but their request fell on deaf ears. They, therefore, gave beating to Mukhtiar Singh by small sticks used for driving camels. Later they returned to their own place. According to them, Bhanuram, Surjaram and Dhonkalram were not there. It is alleged that Surjaram who is an employee of Municipal Council, Hanumangarh was working in his office on that day. They examined 5 witnesses in their defence.