LAWS(RAJ)-1997-11-22

PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On November 14, 1997
PRAKASH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26-3-1993 passed by the AddI. Sessions Judge, Karauli in Sessions Case No. 13/1992, whereby he was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for committing the murder or one Butram and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant herein was also convicted for an offence under Sections 307 and 325, I.P.C. holding him guilty of the charge of attempt to commit murder by inflicting grievous injuries on Bharat Lal Meena, son of deceased Gutram and, therefore, sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/ - in default of which to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 307, I.P.C. He has also been sentenced to three years, rigorous imprisonment under Section 325. I.P.C. alongwith a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of which to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant has also been sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, I.P.C. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts of the case, in which the appellant stood convicted relates to an incident which took place on 13-11-1991 in the morning at 9.30 a.m., regarding which PW 3 Head Constable Kishan Mohan Sharma recorded a Parchabayan of Bharat Lal Meena, son of Gutram who was injured in the incident. It was stated, by him in the. Parchabayan that he alongwith his father Gutram Harphool on 12-11-1991 at 2 p.m. was ploughing his field, during which the accused Prakash, his wife, Smt. Prem and his mother Mangani were also working in the adjoining field and Mangani - mother of Prakash, put the fansrasT (dry stems of crop) into the field of the informant Bharati, to which he objected and told them to keep it on the boundry-wall. The wife and the mother of Prakash, Smt. Prem and Mangani threatened him that they will see him after some time. Thereafter accused Prakash, Jagmohan, Mangani, Prem and Kamleshi who were armed with lathis and gandasis arrived there. Prakash was armed with gandasi, Jagmohan was armed with an axe (kulhari), Mangani, Prem and Kamleshi were armed with lathis and all of them entered into the field of the informant. On seeing them, Gutram told the informant that all the accused persons have come to kill them and, therefore, they should run away to save their lives, after which they started running. While the informant and his father were running to save their lives and reached into the field of Mithu Singh, the accused persons surrounded them and Prakash inflicted gandasi blow on his head as a result of which he fell down and further inflicted three gandasi blows on his head. Jagmohan inflicted a Kulhari blow on his left leg, Mangani, Prem and Kamleshi also started- beating them with lathis. It is further stated that when he fell down, then all the five accused pounced upon his father and assaulted him, but he could not see who inflicted which blow or which part on the body of his father. It is further stated in the parchabayan that the occurrence had been seen by Hira Lal and Ram Lal. Thereafter, the nephew and his father were brought to the hospital by the villagers where his father is still unconscious. It was further stated that there were litigations pending in between the accused and the informant.

(3.) The police registered the First Information Report on the basis of the parchabayan under Sections 147, 447, 323, 324 and 307, I.P.C. Subsequently, Gutram died and, therefore, the case was converted into Section 302, I.P.C. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet accused against Jagmohan, Mst. Mangani and Smt. Prem in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli and, against Kamleshi charge sheet was submitted by the Juvenile Court, Bharatpur. The charges were thereafter framed against the appellant alongwith others for the offence under Sections 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 148, 325, 325/149, 324, 324/149 and 323/149, I.P.C.