NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 374 Cr.PC has been filed against the judgment dated January 8, 1979 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, where by the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) ACCORDING to the Prosecution version, on October 9, 1972 in the evening PW 10 Munshi returned to his house, where his wife told him that his she buffalo had gone for grazing and had not returned, thereupon, Munshi and his son Harphool started search for the she buffalo Ranjeet Bholu Kanchan and Ram Khilari who were present at that time also went along with them. PW 8 Khayali who is neighbour and cousin of Munshi also accompanied and so also PW 9 Meelya joined them. After some distance, PW 6 Harphool is said to have seen the accused appellants taking away she buffalo through the field of Baksha Chamar. Thereupon, Harphool cried and all the persons reached on the site. When they tried to snatch the she buffalo from the appellants who opened attack on them Narayan is said to have been armed with Farshi, while Kalu and Dholiya with Lathis. In the alleged incident 8 persons of the complainant party received injuries as per the medical reports Ex.P 6 to Ex.P 13. It is further stated by the prosecution that while beating was going on Meeliya brother of the appellants, cousin Mangiya and the ladies of the appellants also came on the spot and participated in the said incident. The complainant party was successful in snatching the she buffalo and apprehended the accused appellants. They took the she buffalo as well as the accused appellants to the Tibari of Munshi and a report of the said incident was lodged by Munshi at Police Station Kherli, which is Ex.P 5. After investigation, a challan was submitted against the appellants. The Additional Sessions Judge charged the accused appellants for offence under Sections 394, 397. 325. 324 and 323 IPC. After recording evidence, hearing arguments, the appellants were convicted and sentenced by the trial court as indicated above.

(3.) THE third contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the trial court has also disbelieved the site map Ex.P 1, where, according to the prosecution the quarrel between the parties took place, as according to the trial court no marks of blood or quarrel are mentioned in the site map prepared by the prosecution. The trial court has, therefore, according to the learned counsel rightly come to the conclusion that no dispute/quarrel/beating took place on the spot i.e. the field of Baksha Chamar as shown in the site plan. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the accused party also filed an FIR Ex.D/13 regarding the same incident, which is on record and has been admitted to be correct by the prosecution. Apart from this the medical reports of the accused party have also been filed, which shows that the injuries were received by both the parties. However, the appellants were still convicted as the trial court came to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to prove beyond doubt the parties received injuries it is contended by the learned counsel that when the appellants have successfully proved to the satisfaction of the trial court that no thefi of she -buffalo had taken place nor any beating was exchanged between the parties on account of snatching of she -buffalo from the complainat party by the accused, nor nay beating was exchanged in the field of Baksha Chamar as alleged by the persecution, the accused appellants deserve to be acquitted and the trial court has seriously erred in convicting them as mentioned above.