MAHAVEER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHAVEER Prasad, Ramotar and Gurudayal, appellants herein, along with five co-accused, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu, who vide judgment dated December 19, 2001 while acquitting co- accused persons, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- u/s. 302/34 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. u/s. 447 IPC: Each to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. u/s. 323/34 IPC: Each to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Substantive Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on September 25, 1996 informant Mahaveer Prasad (PW. 1) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) at Police Station Khetri District Jhunjhunu to the effect that on the said day around 6-6. 30 PM. Mana Ram, Chanda Ram, Pala Ram, Nancha Ram, Ramotar, Mahaveer, Gurdayal and their ladies armed with lathis came to the chowk in front of his house. Mahaveer and Ramotar inflicted lathi blows on the person of his father Gotu Ram, who became unconscious, Gurdayal then gave lathi blow on the person of informant. On that report a case under sections 147, 448, 341 and 323 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. In the course of investigation injured Gotu Ram succumbed to his injuries and section 302 IPC was added. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellants were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu. Charges under Sections 147, 447, 336, 302 alternatively 302/149, 323 alternatively 323/149 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellants claimed innocence. Two witnesses in support of defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) SIMILAR situation arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharman vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 324) dispute regarding Shamlati land existed between the parties. The accused claimed that the land was in their possession whereas the party of the deceased put forward the claim that the land had been in their possession for many years. On the date of the incident a fight ensued. The deceased died in the course of a sudden and free fight by the injury inflicted by the appellant. The deceased's party was also armed with dangerous weapons. Held by the Supreme Court, that when two such contending parties, each armed with weapons, when clashed and in the course of free fight some injuries were inflicted on one party or the other, it could not be said that either of them acted in cruel or unusual manner and the case against the appellant clearly fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.