KALU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr. P. C. against the judgment dated 5. 6. 85 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baran in Sessions Case No. 54/83 whereby he has convicted him for the offence under Section 326 IPC. , sentence for 3 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and also for the offence under Section 323 IPC, sentenced for 1 year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100.00.

(2.) THIS case was initiated on a report lodged by Anandi Lal Mali on 7. 2. 83 at Police Station Mangrol, District Kota (now Baran ). It was stated in the report that the informant had gone to his fields to water them by canal water. It is further stated in the report that the informant found that the accused appellant had blocked the flow of water. It is also stated in the report that when the informant reached the field of Latoor Mali, the accused-appellant had asked the informant as to why he had taken water from the canal when he had cleaned the passage of water. The informant replied to him that he would remove the blockade, if caused, while taking the water. Therefore, the accused- appellant Kalu Lal is said to have caused injury to the informant on his shoulder with a `fawra'. One Amarchand intervened and thereafter accused Kalu Lal went away to his nearby field. In the report, it was also stated that the mother of the informant, Smt. Kastoori, was threshing grams (Chana) in the field. At about 3. 30 pm. when Smt. Kastoori had gone to drink water in between the field of Ranglal and Ramnath, the accused- appellant caused injury on her head. On the hue and cry having been raised by the informant and Amarchand, the accused-appellant ran away. On the aforesaid report, the police registered a case for the offence under Section 307 IPC. against the accused appellant for having caused injuries to Anandi Lal and Kastoori. On the conclusion of the investigation, the police filed challan under Section 307 IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where, on 29. 2. 84 charges came to be framed against the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 307, 324 and 323 IPC. The accused-appellant denied the charges. In support of its case, the prosecution produced 11 witnesses during the course of trial. The prosecution had also submitted 13 documents which were duly exhibited. The statement of accused-appellant was then recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. In the said statement, the accused denied the fact of having caused any injury to Anandi Lal. On the contrary, he had stated that it was Anandi Lal who caused injury to him. He also stated that no `fawra' was seized from him and the entire prosecution story is false. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC. But the learned trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him as aforementioned.

(3.) EVEN then the above mentioned prosecution witnesses are not trustworthy and reliable. So much so, that even the complainant Anandi Lal has changed his version before the trial Court. The learned trial Court in this respect held as under:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...