DAU DAYAL JAG MOHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This criminal appeal has been filed under S. 374, Cr. P.C. against the judgment dated 22/06/1982 passed be learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City in Session's case No. 48/1981 whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under S. 326 I.P.C. and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. In default of payment of fine the appellant has to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted under S. 324, IPC and sentenced to 3 months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) It will suffice to state for the purposes of this appeal that at about 6-7 p.m. in Hindaun on 6-8-1980 an incident took place regarding which report Ex. P. 1 was lodged at about 7.25 p.m. It is alleged that complainant Puranmal was beaten and injured by accused-appellant along with two other persons in which the appellant injured Puranmal with 'gupti'. The appellant caused three injuries with 'gupti' to the injured Puranmal. He was also beaten by co-accused with 'Hunter'. The name of third person was not known to the injured person. It was stated that two days earlier these persons had demanded money from Puran and on his refusal he was stabbed and thereafter Puran had also gave them a stab. Thereupon they had threatened him with dire consequences. On the day of occurrence while Puran was going in 'Sariafa Bazar' and reached the shop of Radhey Pan Wala, the appellant and other two persons gave him beatings as stated above. On this report the investigation commenced and the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge who acquitted the co-accused Govind but convicted the appellant as stated above.

(3.) Shri N. L. Tibrewal, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has raised three contentions during the course of arguments. His first contention is that it is the injured Puran who assaulted and started beating the accused-appellant whereupon the injuries were caused to the injured Puran in right of private defence. Therefore, the appellant has committed no offence under the provisions of S.326. I.P.C. as held by the learned trial court. It is further contended that since the injuries were caused while exercising right of private defence of the body of the accused-appellant no offence can be said to have been committed by the accused-appellant and he cannot he convicted under S.326, I.P.C. as held by the learned trial court. The third contention raised by the learned counsel is that since the accused-appellant was of 18-19 years of age at the time of incident and was, therefore, below 21 years of age. It is, therefore, contended that benefit of S. 4/6 of the Probation of Offenders Act should have been given to him.