MANA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Session Judge, Merta, dated 24 1-76 by which accused appellants Mana, Ramkaran, Mst. Bhurati and Mst, Panchuri have been convicted and sentenced as follows, **** TABLE **** 1. Mst. Bhurati) u/s) 302/149

(2.) MST. Panchuri Mana Ramkaran ) I. P. C. 325/149 I. P. c 148 I. P. C 447 I. P. C 323/149 I. P. C ) 302/!49 ) I. P. C ) 325/149 I. P. C. 323 I. P. C. 323/149 I. P. C 447 I. P. C 147 I. P. c Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/- 1 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25/- 6 months R. I. 1 months R. I. 3 months R. I. Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/- 1 year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 25/- 3 months R. I. 3 months R. I. 1 month R I. 4 months R. I. 2. According to the prosecution, a report was lodged by Lachman on 26. 5. 74 at 4 50 pm. at police station Thanwala. It was alleged that an agricultural field known as Pilwawala situated in the 'rohi' of village Alniawas was being ploughed by Lachman, his father Dhanna, his brothers Tiloka and Bali and employee Panchu on the morning of 26th May, 1974. As soon as they started Ploughing the field which was found to have already been ploughed during the night, Kana, Ramkaran, Hira, Nanu, Rajuri, Bhurati and Panchuri came there armed with 'lathis' and 'kassis'. Ramkarn asked Lichman and his father Dhanna to stop ploughing the field and on the complainant continuing to plough the field, Ramkaran gave a lathi on the back of Balu MST. Panchuri, MST. Bhurati and MST. Rajuri inflicted Kassi blows on the head of Balu as a result of which, Balu fell down Lichman sustained simple injuries and Tiloka was also beaten along with Dhanna by Ramkaran and Herka. Deena, who tried to intervene, was also beaten. Balu succumbed to his injuries.

(3.) AGGRIEVED from the above judgement of the learned Judge, the four appellants have mainly pressed this appeal on the short point that even if the occurrence as alleged is assumed to be true, then also the accused are entitled to acquittal on the ground that they did so in exercise of the right of private defence of person as well as property.