MAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LONG family feud between two neighbouring families finally erupted on 17. 10. 82 causing death of Brijendra on the said of the accused-appellants before this Court and alleged attempt to murder on the side of the complainant in this case. The judgment dated 30. 1. 85 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur has led the accused appellants to file the present appeal against their conviction. The impugned judgment has also convinced the State to file its appeal for enhancement of sentence. Since both the appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment, they are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) THE accused appellant No. 1, Man Singh, has been convicted of offence under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code (`ipc' for short) and has been sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment. He has further been convicted of offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 200/- and to further undergo one month of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. THE other accused persons namely, Bachhu Singh, Badan Singh, Vikram Singh, Himmat Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Ramrati have been convicted of offence under Section 147 IPC and have been sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment. THE have further been convicted of offences under Section 307 read with Section 147 IPC and have been sentenced to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment and further imposed with the find of Rs. 200/- and to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. All the accused appellants have also been convicted of offence under Section 323 IPC and have been sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) IN order to decide whether the accused appellants can validly claim the right of private defence, a holistic view of the evidence needs to be taken. A mere comparison of the two site plan, namely, Ex. P. 24 (which was produced by the prosecution in the present case) and of the site plan Ex. D. 18 (which was prepared in the cross case and which has been submitted by the defence as an defence exhibit) clearly show that Ex. P. 24 does not represent a true and complete picture of the scene of the crime. Ex. P. 24 merely shows the house and the open space which belonged to the complainant party in the present case; Ex. D. 18, on the other hand, shows the existence of the house of the complainant in the present case as well as the house of the accused appellants in the present case. IN order to fully understand the occurrence, it is thus better to read both these documents simultaneously. Although Ex. P. 24, shows some cow dung are broken, but it clearly records that "there is no indication or sign to show that any fight had occurred at the open space which belonged to the complainant party. " It merely records that ``where the cow dung cakes are broken it is claimed that the assault had occurred at that particular place. " On the other hand, according to Ex. D. 18, the dead-body of Brijendra is lying at a place marked as `a'; at place marked as `b', blood is splattered on the ground; at place marked as `3', it is alleged that Bhuri Singh fired from that place and Bhuri Singh's house (i. e. the house of the complainant in the present case) is shown at place marked as `5'; lastly, the cartridge was discovered at the place marked as `a' which is a road between the two houses of the complainant party and the appellants. A comparative study of these two site plans clearly reveal that while no fight took place in the open compound belonging to the complainant, the open compound belonging to the accused appellants is where the blood was discovered lying on the ground and the dead body of Brijendra was, discovered. It is not the case of the prosecution that in fact Brijendra was killed in the open space belonging to the complainant party and his body was taken to the open space belonging to the accused appellants. IN fact such a position could not have been taken by the prosecution as there is no trail of blood going from the open space belonging to the complainant to the open space belonging to the accused appellants. Thus, obviously, the actual scene of crime is the open space belonging to the accused appellants.