PANNI & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by accused-appellants Panni, Patre, Ramhet, Kanhaiya, Narain, Pooran, Mansingh and Arbo is directed against the judgment dated May 18, 1976 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, whereby he convicted and sentenced accused Panni, Patre and Ramhet as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_22_LAWS(RAJ)2_1978.html</FRM> The substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to accused-appellants Panni and Patre were ordered to run concurrently. The rest of the accused-appellants were convicted under section 323 I.P.C., but instead of being sentenced to imprisonment, the benefit of Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act was extended to them. The remaining accused tried along with the accused-appellants were, however, acquitted of all the charges framed against them. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has not pressed the appeal on behalf of appellants Nos. 4 to 8. As such now I am concerned with the appeal on behalf of appellants Nos. 1 to 3 namely, Panni, Patre and Ramhet.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on June 25, 1975 Hari Singh (since deceased), Pooran PW 1, Chandan Singh PW 2, Kamal Singh PW 3, PW 6 Rambabu and Om Prakash PW 7 were cultivating Khasra Nos. 3150 and 3151 with the help of a tractor. Nearly at 8 a.m. the accused 16 in number including the appellants Panni, Patre and Ramhet formed an unlawful assembly and after being armed with weapons went on the field to desist the members of the complainant party from cultivating the land. By exhibiting sufficient force the accused persons asked the members of the complainant party not to continue the trespass over the land. Gopal, the driver of the tractor, ran away from the scene of the occurrence with the tractor to save his own life. But as members of the complainant party did not oblige the accused by leaving the place, the accused persons inflicted injuries, it is alleged that during the course of this incident Hari Singh sustained three injuries as mentioned in the post-mortem report Ex. P/24, Pooran sustained 8 injuries as mentioned in injury report Ex. P/25 and Om Prakash sustained one injury. His injury report is P/26. Rambabu sustained one injury. His injury report is Ex. P/27 The prosecution case further is that the fatal blow to Hari Singh was caused by Panni and Patre and Ramhet inflicted grievous injury on the person of Hari Singh as well as on the person of Pooran. First Information Report of this occurrence was lodged by PW 5 Madan Lal at Police Station, Sewar on the same day at 10.30 a. m. The first information report is Ex. P/6. The injured persons were clinically examined by PW II Dr. Devi Lal Gupta and the postmortem on the dead body of Hari Singh was performed by the same doctor. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against 16 persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, who committed all of them to take their trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of their case, out of whom PW 1 Pooran, PW 6 Rambabu and PW 7 Om Prakash are the injured persons. PW 2 Chandan Smgh and PW 3 Kamal Singh are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. PW 11 Dr. Devi Lal Gupta was examined to prove the injury reports and the postmortem report. PW 12 Umashanker is the Patwari of Halqa Ikran, who was examined to prove the possession of the complainant on the date of the occurrence on the fields on which the incident took place. Khasra Girdawaries Ex. P/22 and Ex. P/23 were produced and proved on behalf of the prosecution. Ex. D/1 an application containing the admission of Pooran Singh PW 1 and Ex. D/2 a site plan prepared by the Girdawar and Ex. D/2 report of the Girdawar bearing the signatures of PW 1 Pooran were got exhibited through the same witness as defence documents. The accused persons denied their complicity in the crime and examined two witnesses namely, DW 1 Bbogi and CW Fattey.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge taking into consideration the documentary evidence on record and the statements of PW 1 Pooran and PW 12 Umashanker Girdawar as well as certain admissions made by the prosecution witnesses in the cross-examination held that out of 9 bighas and 7 biswas of land the accused persons in cultivatory possession of 4 bighas and 9 biswas of land and the members of the complainant party did not have any right to cultivate the entire land on the date of the occurrence. They could have cultivated only 4 bighas and 18 biswas of land. On the basis of this finding the learned Judge held that the accused had the right of private defence of property. He further held that the members of the complainant party did not inflict any injuries on the person of the accused and as such on the proved facts of the case it could be held that they were unarmed and a murderous assault was made by the accused on unarmed persons, On the basis of the above findings he convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. As regards the rest of the accused the learned Judge found the prosecution evidence to be wavering and did not consider it safe to convict them. The convicted accused have come up in appeal.