BASTI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal owes its origin in the judgment dated January 27, 2006 of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kishangarh Bas District Alwar, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :- Vikram & Ajeet Kumar : u/S. 323 IPC: Both to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. u/S. 324 IPC : Both to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. u/S. 307/34 IPC: Both to suffer simple imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for one year. Basti Ram : u/S. 323 IPC : To suffer simple imprisonment for three months. u/S. 324 IPC : To suffer simple imprisonment for one year.u/S. 307 IPC : To suffer simple imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for one year. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) It is the prosecution case that informant Sube Singh (PW.8) submitted a written report (Ex. P-7) at police station Mundawar on August 16, 2003 at 11.15 a.m. to the effect that on August 14, 2003 while he along with his family members bad gone to meet his relatives and his daughter and nephew were alone in the house, one Mannu Ram scaled the wall of the house in the night but since the inhabitants awoke he fled away. The informant, after corning back to the village, when knew about the incident, he became angry and proceeded to lodge protest along with Ramavtar and Suresh Kumar. Infuriated by this Basti Ram inflicted blow with Kassi on the head and Vikram gave lathi blow on the eye of Ramavtar, when the informant made attempt to intervene Mannu and Vikram gave lathi blows on his hands. On that report case was registered under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and investigation commenced. Injuries sustained by injured persons were medically examined and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar. Charges under Sections 323, 341 and 307/34 IPC were framed. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 witnesses and 11 documents. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. PC, the appellants claimed innocence. One witness was examined in defence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submission convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) I have heard Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M. L. Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor and weighed the material on record.