MANGI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is D. B. Criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5-1-1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk convicting and sentencing the accused appellants as under:- Mangt Lal U/s 302/34 IPC. Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further under go 2 months R. I. U/s 323/34 IPC. One years' R. I. U/s 325/34 IPC. Five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, one months' rigorous imprisonment. Raisal U/s 302/34 IPC. Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default two months R. I. U/s 325 IPC. Five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, one month's rigorous imprisonment. Durga U/s 302/34 Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default two months rigorous imprisonment. U/s 325 IPC Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default one month's R. I. Meva U/s 302 IPC. Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, two months rigorous imprisonment. U/s 325 IPC. Five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, one month's rigorous imprisonment. U/s 323 IPC. One year rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts Khasra Nos. 236 and 237 in village Sirohi. The complainant party and the accused party are near relatives. Accused appellant Mangi Lal and Govinda are real brothers and deceased Rampal is son of Govinda. Both the parties claim their right over the disputed land mentioned above. On 23-6-3983 at about 9. 00 A. M. , according to the P. I. R. the complainant party was cultivating the disputed land and the accused appellants and two other persons came there with lathis in their hands. They told that they will not allow them to cultivate the disputed field. The accused persons then started giving beating to Rampal, Arjun, Ram Chandra and Modiya. Smt. Dhani w/o Arjun, Sarwani and Nolaji, who were coming towards the field tried to intervene, but were also beaten by the accused-appellants by lathis. The complainant Kedar Prasad also went thereto intervene in the matter. The accused persons after causing injuries went away from the spot and at that time many other persons also reached there. Rampal was taken to the hospital, who succumbed to his injuries on the way. The other injured persons went to the hospital at Nivai and a written report (Ex. P. l) was submitted at Police Station Nivas, on the basis of which FIR (Ex. P. 2) was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 447 and 323 IPC.

(3.) THUS, it is clear that, in the earlier version given by these witnesses before they were examined in the court, they have admitted that the accused persons were already ploughing the land when the complainant party reached there and challenged them why they were cultivating the !and belonging to Rampal, whereupon the fighting took place. This is absolutely contrary to the version given by these witnesses when they were examined in the court. It is also perti-nent to note that none of the witnesses have explained the injuries caused on the person of accused party, some of whom have received grievous injuries. It has been stated by them that these injuries, if any, might have been caused to them amongst themselves. It may also be pointed out that the witnesses of the complainant party have stated that no crop of sugarcane was standing in the disputed land, whereas P. W. 16 Karan Singh, Investigating Officer has stated in his statement that he cannot say who cultivated the crop of sugarcane in the disputed field. Some of the witnesses of the complainant party have also stated that they had not cultivated the sugarcane in the disputed field. P. W. Ramraj has also admitted in Ex. D 6 that crop of sugarcane was cultivated since last 2 years in the disputed field. He also admits to have litigation with the accused persons. P. W. 9 Ram Kishore, Patwari has also stated that the crop of sugarcane and 'rijka' was cultivated in the disputed land, but he does not know who cultivated the same. He has also admitted that the disputed land belongs to both the parties. He further states that he does not know how the disputed land was in the name of deceased Rampal alone. P. G. 11 Dhani w/o Arjun was also confronted with her statement u/s 16' Cr. P. C. (Ex D/11) in which she has stated that when she went at the disputed field on the day of occurrence, she found that the accused persons were ploughing the field and her husband and others of the complainant party were stopping them from doing so. She also admits that there was sugarcane crop in the disputed land at the time of occurrence. She has clearly stated that deceased Rampal stopped Mangilal from ploughing the land. P. W. 15 Sarwan in his statement u/s 116 Cr. P. C. (Ex D. 12) has also stated that in the disputed land the crop of sugarcane was there and the accused persons were ploughing the field, whereupon, the complainant party asked them not to do so.