RAMCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the appellate Judgment of the learned Additional Session Judge, Sriganganagar dated 25.4.1978 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has maintained the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner recorded under section 326 IPC by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar vide his Judgment dated 18.1.1978. The petitioner was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default, to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision briefly stated are that accused Ramchandra is the son of complainant Mst. Jamna. The husband of Mst. Jamna and the father of accused-petitioner Ramchandra i.e. Bhagwanaram died 7-8 years before the occurrence. Bhagwanaram left behind 27 bighas of land. It is alleged that out of the 27 bighas of land, 10 big has of the land has been sold by Mst. Jamna to somebody. According to the complainant, she has been cultivating this remaining 17 bighas of land through some Thekedars. She has alleged that on 6.2.1975 at about 4 p.m. she went to the field alongwith her daughter Reshma. It is alleged that accused Ramchandra, his wife Mst. Meera and one Ganguram came there. Ganguram gave her beating by a fist and Mst. Meera gave beating to her by lathi and accused Ramchandra inflicted an injury on her leg by a Kaasi, which is a sharp-edged weapon. Mst. Jamaa went to the field to take the fire wood and also to plough the field. She went and reported the matter to the police. After investigation, the case against the accused petitioner and his two companions was challaned in the court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of both the parties came to the conclusion that the disputed field was in possession of accused Ramchandra and, therefore, the accused-petitioner Ramchandra has been acquitted of the offence under actions 447 and 323/34 IPC. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the accused-petitioner has been held guilty of the offence under section 326 IPC and has been sentenced as aforesaid. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has maintained his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. Hence this revision.

(3.) I have heard Mr. I.S. Champawat, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. Mr. I.S. Champawat, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has submitted that actually this case rests on the evidence of a single witness. It is beyond doubt that a son will beat his mother. He has further stated that Mst. Reshma has not supported her mother and the testimony of the other witnesses is also of no value because that is the hearsay evidence based on what was told to them by Mst. Jamna and therefore, the accused-petitioner deserves acquittal.