NAVLARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, appellants have challenged the judgment dated November 11, 2002 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), No. 1, Bharatpur whereby each of appellants Navlaram, Kapoor Chand, Amit Kumar @ Ummed, Baldev, Balveer and Dalveer were convicted and sentenced as under: u/s. 302/149 IPC, to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. u/s. 307/147 IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. u/s. 325/149 IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. u/s. 148 IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. u/s. 323 IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that informant Udai Singh S/o Deoji Jat R/o Dehara, lodged a written report at Police Station Nadbai on October 27, 2000 at 11. 30 a. m. In the report, it was stated that on 27. 10. 2000 at 8-9 a. m. in the morning Navla, Baldev, Balveer, Dalveer, Kapoor, Samander, Mangi and Ummaid who were armed with `lathis' and `farsa' and were forcibly ploughing the field of the informant. On being asked not to plough the field by informant, they started beating him. Balveer inflicted a `farsa' blow on his head with the intention to kill him. On hearing his call to save him, his father Deoji, brother Dharam Singh, wife Smt. Kela, `bhabhi' Smt. Leela rushed and tried to save him. On this, all the above assailants assaulted them. They also outraged the modesty of his `bhabhi' and wife with the intention to dishonor them and a golden chain and `chandi Ki Mala', respectively from the neck of his `bhabhi' and wife, were taken away with the intention to commit theft.

(3.) THE genesis as revealed from the prosecution case is that the complainant party as well as the accused party had their fields adjoining to each other, separated by common `med' i. e. , the demarcation boundary and the incident occurred when the said common boundary was allegedly violated and the field on the other side was being ploughed by the other side as per the allegation and counter allegation. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is revealed that in the incident Deoji (PW. 2), his son Dharam Singh (deceased), Udaia Singh (PW. 1), Dharma Singh's wife Smt. Leelawati (PW. 4) and Smt. Kela W/o Udai Singh (PW. 3) sustained injuries and Dharam Singh succumbed to the injuries while he was being taken for treatment to Jaipur. Dr. Sukhram (PW. 10) who conducted autopsy on the body of Dharam Singh and prepared the post mortem report (Ex. P. 21), found that the cause of death of deceased Dharam Singh was two lacerated wounds on head situated at a distance of half centimeter from each other with fracture of right parietal bone with internal bleeding, resulting in epidural and subdural haematoma leading to coma and death. From the evidence adduced in defence, it is also revealed that a cross case of the incident was lodged vide FIR (Ex. D5) by the appellant Dalveer Singh against the members of the complainant partly namely Udai (PW. 1) Dharma (deceased), Deoji (PW. 10) and Mst. Nibba, wherein appellant Balveer sustained as many as nine injuries including one incised wound as per injury report (Ex. D 6) while Kishan S/o Mangal and Smt. Rampyari W/o Navlaram also sustained injuries.