UMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeal arise out of the judgement dt. 22. 7. 1978, were by, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Udaipur convicted the appellant Umeshchand in Appeal No. ' 271 of 1978 under Sec. 307, IPC add sentenced him to there years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment and he further convicted the appellant Manju in Appeal No. 275 of 1978 for the offence under Sec. 324, IPC and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

(2.) THE occurrence in this case is stated to have taken plaee on 3. 5. 77 bet ween 9. 30-10. 00 p. m. near the police station Surajpol in the city of Udaipur. It is said that some incidents have taken place with the complainant Jabbarkhan's son Nawabkhan, which was reported by Nawabkhan to his father Jabbarkhan is THEreupon, Jabbarkhan is said to have proceeded from his house to lodge the report at the police station, Surajpol. He went on the Motor Cycle driven by Ashok Kumar. It is urged that the Motor Cycle was got stopped by the accused-persons viz. Umeschandra. Chunnukhan, Majid Manju and Hamidkhan. THEy ware armed 'with dhariya' lathis and knife. It is stated that the accused Manju inflicted a dhariya blow on the head of Jabbar khan and Umeshchandra inflicted a knife blow on his right scapular region and the other accused persons gave fist blows. A written report of the incident was lodged at 10. 20 p. m. THEreupon a case under s. 307, I. P. C. was registered against the accused-persons Jabbarkhan was medically examined. After necessary investigation, the charge Sheet was presented against five accused persons who were committed and ultimately tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur. Three accused-persons namely Chunnukhan, Majid and Hamidkhan were acquitted and the remaining two accused-persons; Umeshchandra and Manju were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal of Umeshchandra is allowed and he is acquitted of the offence of which he was convicted. He is already on bail, so, he need not surrender to his bail-bonds. His bail-bonds are hereby discharged.