SUGNA & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer dated 28th May, 1981 convicting the appellants, Sugna and Ram Nath, for offence under Sections 326 and 324 Penal Code respectively and sentencing the former to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. and under Sec. 324 Penal Code six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00 and the latter under Sec. 324 Penal Code alone and sentencing him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00.

(2.) Briefly stating, the prosecution case is that a report was lodged on 21st Sept., 1979 at 10.00 a.m. at Police Station Arain district Ajmer by one Kishan s/o Pokar wherein it was alleged by him that in his field they had harvested part of Jwar crop while the remaining was being harvested. When he and his father were grazing in that field at about 10.00 a. m., the accused persons named in the report armed with lathi and axes came there with 40-50 cattles and forced the cattles in their field. On protest, they attacked them and caused multiple injuries by axes and lathis. Details were also mentioned therein. On receipt of this report, a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 321, 323 and 307 Penal Code was registered and investigation commenced. Both the injured Kishna and Pokar were medically examined and Doctor found multiple injuries of their persons by report Ex. P. 9, pertaining to Pokar and report Ex. P. 11 pertaining to Kishna. Pokar also sustained fracture on frontal bone and radius ulna which were proved by report Ex. P. 10. After investigation police filed a charge-sheet against seven persons who were committed to sessions. Various charges were framed against them to which they denied and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses in support of its case. Accused-appellant in their statements recorded under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. stated that they are the owners of the land & it was Pokar and Krishna who wanted to have forceably entered and taken possession and were also causing damage to the field. They also produced three witnesses in support of their case and proved the injuries sustained by Ram Nath. The accused set up a case of right of private defence of persons and property both.

(3.) The learned trial Court did not accept the prosecution story as placed by prosecution and held that prosecution has failed to prove possession on the disputed land but instead of giving right of private defence of person and property held the case to be one of free fight and scrutinised the case of all the accused persons. He found the case proved against the accused-appellants and has convicted and sentenced them as indicated above and acquitted the remaining five accused-persons. Aggrieved by this judgment, the present appeal has been preferred.