STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 378, Cr. P.C. has been directed against the acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta

(2.) The prosecution case relates to an incident which occurred on 29-9-1976 at 12.00 Noon in village Indokali in which Umaida Ram was murdered and some persons received injuries. The First Information Report of the occurrence was lodged by Ganesh Ram son of deceased at about 1.45 a.m. on 30-9-1976. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 302, 302 read with 34, 325 read with 34 and 323, I.P.C. All the four accused respondents pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Accused in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. denied having committed any offence. The plea of the accused Bhagwant Ram was that he was not at the place of occurrence. Hari Ram accused pleaded that when he was collecting grass by a 'Jeli', Umaida, Ganesha and Tulchha went there, abused him and Ganesha snatched 'kassi' which was in the hands of his mother and caused injuries by 'kassi' to her and Tulchha gave a lathi blow on her head and therefore, he had to use his 'Jeli' to save his mother. Chhoga Ram and Bhuri also raised the plea of self-defence. The accused respondents examined 2 witnesses in defence. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties held that accused Bhagwant Ram was not at the place of occurrence. He further held that Bhuri and Chhoga Ram accused respondent had inflicted blows in the exercise of their right of private defence. For that Hari Ram, accused, the learned Sessions Judge observed that be had exceeded the right of private defence and had committed offence under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. Looking to his age, he was released on probation.

(3.) The arguments of learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State and Mr. Sandeep Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have been heard,