BABU SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE were two rival groups in village Jaghina one of which was headed by Heera Singh and the other by Lotan Singh, acted as guiding force of the other Heera Singh attached to Bhagor Jat community, whereas Lotan Singh was connected with Sogaris Jats. THERE is no dispute that there was deep seated malicious prolonged hostility between the two groups. They were also involved in protracted litigation. On January 7, 1971 at about 8. 00 a. m. five members of the accused party sustained injuries in a scuffle. The severs hurts caused to Karan Singh were proved to be fatal as a result whereof he died in the hospital 8 days after the accurrence. 11 persons of the complainant's group also sustained injuries in the same incident. The total number of injuries sustained by them went upto 69 The injuries suggest that both the sides must have been equipped with such as spears, lathis and sharp edged weapons. Two reports were lodged with the Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur, one made by Heera Singh on which emerged in case No. 3 of the 1971 registered against 29 persons including the appellants.

(2.) THE case disclosed in the first information report. Ex P/5, lodge 1 by Heera Singh, is that on the fateful day (i. e on January 7,1971) the informant took 7 or 8 persons on the tube well of Shivram to prod tractor for drawing out water from the well. After the tractor began working, Shivram and his son got themselves engaged in irrigating the standing crop. Soon after the accused having formed an unlawful assembly and arming themselves with lathis, spears and sharp edged weapons came on the tube well of Shivram THEy made violent onslaught with persistence upon the complainant and inflicted a number of injuries on their persons As many as 69 injuries were caused to them Samandar Singh, Tej Singh and Gordhan Singh tried to rescue them, but they too were not spaced. As many as 11 persons of complainant's party were injured. On the information lodged by the opposite camp, case No. 4 of 1971 was registered. THE report gave a conflicting version.

(3.) MR. M. I, Khan, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, supports the conviction of the accused. He contends that from the long standing animosity between the two rival groups it could safely be inferred that both the parties were predetermined to have trial of strength. Some members of the appallants' party armed with deadly weapons lay in ambush in the mus-tared field. Rest of them came from the village. The accused came after making full preparation for a fight. The irresistible inference would be that their intention was to cause injuries to the members of the other party. They indubitably constituted an unlawful assembly and the injuries inflicted on the members of the complainant party, were caused in furtherance of the common object. The accused, therefore, are individually a? d constructively liable for the crimes alleged to have been committed. In support of his contention learned Public Pro-secuter placed reliance on Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1 ). He also argues that it is a case of a free fight. He categorises the free fight under the following two heads; (1) where a mutual conflict develops and there is no reliable and acceptable evidence as to how it had casued and at whose instance Such a case would be one of a sudden fight. In a case of this nature each individual accused could be held responsible for the injuries caused by him; and (ii) where a free fight is the result of a pre planned preparation and attack. In such a case all the persons participating in the occurrence would be held vicariously liable. The learned counsel added that the case in hand falls into the second category.