SHANKARLAL Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali dated June 27, 1978 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has held the accused- appellant Shankerlal guilty of the offences under sections 325 and 323 Penal Code and has sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment on the first count and six months rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 250.00 and in default, to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment on the second count. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that: accused Shankerlal and injured Hardeo are neighbours in their fields with a common boundary. It is alleged that one Babul tree was standing on the boundary of these two fields, which Hardeo claimed that it belonged to him whereas accused Shankerlal cut that tree and utilised it. This actually became a bone of contention between the two and their relations became strained for the past about 4-5 years. Hardeo has shifted to village Devli. One of his fields at Banakudi was given on Batai to P. W. 9 Pukhraj, Gram Sewak. On 6.10.1977, at about 8 A M., Hardeo went to the house of Pukhraj Gram Sewak to enquire about the fact whether the crop has been cut or not? It is alleged that when he was sitting on the Chabutri of the house of Pukhraj, accused Shankerlal came from behind. He was armed with a lathi. He struck blows on the head and other parts of the body of Hardeo causing as many as 8 injuries, four of which were lacerated wounds, two were bruises and two were abrasions. Two of the injuries situated on the head of injuries Hardeo and they have resulted in fracture of the front parietal bone and injury No. 3 has resulted in comminute fracture of left tibia. Out of the blunt weapon injuries, injuries Nos. 2 and 3 were grievous and rest were found to be simple. It is alleged that Pukhraj Gram Sewak tried to intervene and cried for help whereupon, P W. 5 Sajjansingh followed by P. W. 4 Bharatsingh and P. W. 6 Hanuta who were sitting on the hotel of Banshi came running to the place of the occurrence. P. W. 4 Bharatsingh and P. W. 5 Sajjansingh tried to save Hardeo whereupon, the accused went away with his lathi towards his own house. Before P. W. 6 Hanuta reached the place of the occurrence, the beating was already over. The condition of the injured became serious and, therefore, he was immediately taken to Jetaran where the medical aid was given to him by P. W. 1 Dr. Mansingh Bhandari. He found the condition of the injured serious and, therefore, he advised for X-ray examination of his skull and left leg and asked the persons who accompanied him to shift him to Beawar. The injured was taken to the Hospital at Jetaran at 9 A. M. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Jetaran at 12 in the noon and after that, he was shifted to Beawar, where his radiological examination was also conducted by Dr. R.S. Gahlot. The F.I.R. was lodged by one Sanwal Ram who is cousin brother of Hardeo. This report scribed by Pukhraj has been marked Ex. P. 3. on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. Ex. 6 was drawn. The injury report of Hardeo has been marked Ex. P. 1. His X-ray reading report has been marked Ex. P. 2. The site inspection memo and the site plan have been marked Ex. P. 4 and 5 respectively.

(3.) After usual investigation, the case against the accused was challaned in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Jetaran under s. 307 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Pali. The learned Sessions Judge charged the accused with the offence under s. 307 I.P.C. The accused did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial, whereupon, the prosecution examined in all 10 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the accused was recorded under s. 313 Cr. P.C. He has completely denied the incident and has alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case on account of the previous enmity. He led no defence and hence, after hearing the parties, the learned lower court decided the case as aforesaid. The learned lower court has held that requisite intention to kill was not present in the mind of the accused and, therefore, it has held him guilty only of the offence under sections 325 and 23 I.P.C. and has sentenced him as aforesaid.