NATHU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NATHU Lal, Hanuman, Smt. Lali Devi and Smt. Prabhati, the appellants herein, along with Mool Chand were placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jaipur District Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 77/2001 (3/99), who vide judgment dated August 16, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- NATHU Lal : U/sec. 302 IPC : To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of further suffer one year imprisonment. U/sec. 323/149 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer one month imprisonment. U/sec. 147 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer three months imprisonment. U/sec. 325/149 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer six months imprisonment. Hanuman U/sec. 302/149 IPC : To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of further suffer one year imprisonment. U/sec. 323/149 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer one month imprisonment. U/sec. 147 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer three months imprisonment. U/sec. 325 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer six months imprisonment. Smt. Lali Devi: U/sec. 302/149 IPC : To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of further suffer one year imprisonment. U/sec. 323 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer one month imprisonment. U/sec. 147 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer three months imprisonment. U/sec. 325/149 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer six months imprisonment. Smt. Prabhati Devi: U/sec. 302/149 IPC : To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of further suffer one year imprisonment. U/sec. 323 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer one month imprisonment. U/sec. 147 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer three months imprisonment. U/sec. 325/149 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer six months imprisonment. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. During the course of trial Mool Chand died and the proceeding against him stood dropped.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that informant Lallu Ram (PW-1) lodged a report with the police station Kanota on July 2, 1998 stating therein that on the said day in the morning around 4 AM Nathu, Hanuman, Lali Devi, Manju, Moolchand Kumhar and Prabhati came armed with lathis and Nathu inflicted lathi blow on the head of Kalu doe to which he became unconscious. Hanuman caused injury to Sugaram, Mool Chand, Prabhati and Lali caused injuries to Mangal, Rampyari and Habu, Kalu Ram was removed to SMS Hospital Jaipur where he died. On that report formal FIR No. 84/1998 was registered and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jaipur District Jaipur. Charges under Sections 148, 323/149, 325/149, 302 and 302/149 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 16 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. Two witnesses in defence were examined and documents were exhibited. On hearing final submissions learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the members of accused and complainant party were neighbours and the quarrel started all of sudden. Since both sides sustained injuries and cross case was registered against the complainant party, it could not be said that they unlawfully shared common object. Therefore, charge for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC is not established. Per contra, learned counsel Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment.