HIMMATA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE all these three appeals are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore dated January 15, 1977, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. By the judgment aforesaid, the four appellants were convicted and sentenced as under: S.No. Name of Accused Offence Under Section Sentence awarded(1) Himmata Ram 302, IPC Imprisonment forLife;325/34, IPC Rigorous imprisonmentfor two years with afine of Rs. 300;323/34, IPC Rigorous imprisonmentfor one year;(2) Each of accused:(a) Smt. Jhumki 302/34, IPC Imprisonment for life;(b) Smt. Sharki(c) Deyram Das 325/34, IPC Rigorous imprisonmentfor two years with afine of Rs. 300/ -;323/34, IPC Rigorous imprisonmentfor one year.

(2.) THE sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) IN the opinion of Dr. Verma, the cause of death of Durg Das was coma due to depressed fracture of skull. The post -mortem examination report prepared by him is Ex. P 1. The injuries of Gopal Das were also examined on August 23, 1976 by PW 3, B.L. Rai, the then Medical Jurist General Hospital, Jalore. One lacerated wound and five contusions were found on his body. All these injuries except that on the left fore -arm were simple caused by blunt weapon. The X -ray examination revealed fracture of shaft of left ulna. The injury report prepared by the doctor is Ex. P 2. The appellants were arrested and some lathis were recovered in consequence of the informations furnished by them. The blood -stained clothes of the deceased were also seized and sealed. After when the investigation was over, the police presented a crime report against the appellants in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302, 302/34, 325, 325/34 and 323, IPC against all of them, to which they pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. The defence taken by the appellants was that the field, in which the incident had taken place, was in their continuous and peaceful possession since long and they were in possession of the field on the day of the incident. The deceased wanted to dispossess them and to take forcible possession over the field with the help of Patwari Mohan Das PW 5. Neither the Patwari nor Durg Das had any right to go to their (appellant's) field and to dispossess them. They were, therefore, entitled to use violence against the deceased and his son in order to turn out them from the field. They did not inflict more harm than necessary for the purpose of defence. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge held the charges duly established against the appellants. The learned Sessions Judge, no doubt, held that the field, in which the incident had taken place, was in possession of the appellants. But he refused to accept the appellant's plea of the right of private defence. The appellants were consequently convicted and sentenced, as mentioned at the very out -set. Aggrieved against their conviction, the appellants have taken these appeals.