HEMCHAND AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, eight in number, were jointly tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar, on charges of rioting armed with deadly weapons and murder of one Mohanlal. By his judgment, dated, March 4, 1975, learned Judge convicted all of them under section 148 and section 302 read with section 149 IPC. He sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 148 IPC. and imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100.00 or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 302-149 I. P. C.

(2.) The case of the prosecution which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the appellants as aforementioned may be shortly stated here. Mohanlal deceased was in cultivatory possession of land comprised in field Nos. 304 and 315 situated in the area of village Ram Nagar, P. S. Tijara. district Alwar. He raised bajra crop in that land in 1973. On Sept. 15, 1973, he went to this land to harvest the crop. His wife, Soni, and nephew, Lala also went with him. At about 1 P.M. that day, the appellants arrived there armed with deadly weapons like pharsi, lathi and ballam. They wanted to take forcible possession of the said land. Appellant Gian Chand asked Mohanlal deceased to leave the land and threatened that if he did not leave he should face the consequences. Mohanlal refused to heed the threat. Appellant Gyan Chand opened the attack inflicting a blow with sword on the neck of Mohanlal deceased. Mohanlal fell down. Appellant Suraj pierced both the eyes of the deceased, thrusting his bhala into them. Appellants Hem Chand alias Chander, Omi, Chiman and Chunni gave pharsi blows on the various parts of the body of the deceased. Mohanlal died on the way to Tijara hospital as a result of these injuries. Soni went to the police station Tijara and lodged the F. I. R. there at 6.15 P.M. that day.

(3.) During the trial, the prosecution examined Soni, Hukam Chand, Kishan Lal and Lala as the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Learned trial Judge ignored the testimony of Kishanlal as unreliable, and rightly so in our opinion. He, however, relied on the evidence of P.Ws Soni, Hukam Chand and Lala and convicted all the eight accused on that basis. We have quite carefully considered their evidence and find that they too do not inspire much confidence.