LAWS(RAJ)-1989-1-23

BANSHU KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On January 18, 1989
BANSHU KHAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the famine works, a road was to be constructed from Hotrada Nada to Ajit, about 6 kms. Long. Sanction by the State Govt. in this regard had been issued on 27/28. 5. 83 and the work of construction started on 30. 5 83. The construction was started from Ajit and was proceeding towards Samdari. It is alleged that the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ajit, Shri Bakhtawar Singh asked the mistry Natwar Lal etc. to stop the work of the road. The Sarpanch Shri Bakhtawar Singh wanted that the road should proceed via Dudrada. On this, the matter was reported to the local M. L. A. , Shri Dhara Ram, whereupon the Assistant Engineer, P. W. D. , Samdari, met Shri Dhara Ram and he was told by Shri Dhara Ram that the road should continue from Hotrada Nada. The work was then resumed on 4. 6. 83 but on 5. 6. 83 again Shri Neku Khan reported to Shri Dhara Ram that Shri Bakhtawar Singh had threatened him with dire consequences if the road would start from Hotrada Nada and had asked him to stop the construction of the road. Shri Dhara Ram assured Neku Khan that nothing will happen and that the work should continue. Then on 8. 6. 83, when Shri Dhara Ram, M. L. A. was sitting in the Co-operative Bank, Samdari, Sarpanch Bakhtawar Singh came there and asked Shri Dhara Ram to get the work of the road stopped and also threatened him to the effect that if the work continued, he would see him and Neku Khan. Shri Dhara Ram tried to appease Shri Bakhtawar Singh and told him that if he had any objection, he should take recourse to legal proceedings. On this Bakhtawar Singh and his com-panions left the place in anger. However, it appears that before this on that very day i. e. on 8. 6. 83 at about 10 a. m , Mool Singh and some other persons wanted to stop the construction and threatened the labourers not to continue the work of the road, whereupon Neku Khan and others are alleged to have attacked them and an altercation is alleged to have taken place between both the parties. Reports of this incident were lodged at police station, Samdari. A case against Neku Khan, Akbar Khan and others was registered as No. 46/83 at about 5. 30 p. m. and a counter case was also registered against the other party.

(2.) THEN it is alleged that on 9. 6. 83, at about 10. 30 or 11 a. m. , both the parties collected at Hotrada Nada where the work of the road was in progress. The M. L. A. , Shri Dhara Ram along with S. D. O. and some other persons had reached there and Bakhtawar Singh and his party was also there. The Junior Engineer, Shri Mathur, two Patwaris were also there. It is alleged that the revenue record was looked into and the S. D. O. decided that the work should continue as it was in accordance with the 'katan' road. When this decision was taken, Neku Khan declared that Bakhtawar Singh had threatened him and may get him killed adding that if he was so killed, his statue may begot constructed and inaugurated by Smt. Indira Gandhi. However, the S. D. O. instructed the police to afford him protection and to maintain peace and on this all the parties left. The work continued. When these persons reached village Ajit, at about 11 a. m. they found some 30 or 40 persons having collected in the Panchayat Bhawan and it is alleged that Sarpanch Bakhtawar Singh told the crowd that as the S. D. O. has not stopped the work of the road, they should go to the site with lathis and get the work stepped by beating people upon sensing trouble, Sale Mohd. went to Akbar Khah at his well and asked Akbar Khan to intervene, whereupon Akbar Khan went to Hotrada Nada. On the way, after they came 4 or 5 kms. , Akbar Khan saw a tractor driven by Narpat Singh along with a trolley coming from the side of Hotrada Nada towards Ajit and that there were about 50 persons in the trolley. He then met Ridmal Khan at about 3 p. m. who had also seen the tractor coming. It is alleged that Ridmal Khan heard the accused Banshu Khan, Safi Mohd. , Narpat Singh, Bheekh Singh and Mukan Singh saying that this was the opportunity to beat them up and crush them under the tractor. Hearing this exhortation from these persons, all the persons came down from the tractor with lathis and dharias and started beating Neku Khan, Subhan Khan, Akbar Khan, Samad Khan, Ratan Khan and Sadique Khan. Latter Akbar Khan and Neku Khan were crushed under the wheels of the tractor. After this, the trolley which was earlier got separated from the tractor, was again joined to the tractor and Narpat Singh and his party left for Ajit in that tractor and trolley. Later Ridmal Khan, Dalu Khan, Sadique and Kamruddin brought two chhakar-as and carried the injured to the hospital, Samdari. Neku Khan died on the way and Akbar Khan also breathed his last on reaching the hospital. Ridmal Khan then went to the police station, Samdari and lodged the F. I. R. . at 9 p. m. Ridmal Khan was a mate on the work of the road. On this, a case was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 325 I. P. C. After due investigations, the police put up a challan against 27 accused persons and they were committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra camp Barmer, who framed charges under sections 148, 302 or 302 read with 149, 323, 325 and in the alternative u/s 323/325 read with 149 I. P. C. against all of them. The prosecution examined 26 witnesses and produced 132 documents, and 13 material exhibits. The accused denied the prosecution story and alleged that when the accused party had been beaten up by the members of the opposite party on 8. 6. 83, they got a case registered against them with the police and the S. H. O. was to come for investigations in respect of that matter at the spot on 9. 6. 83 an J, therefore, they had also gone to the spot in the tractor. According to them, as soon as the" tractor reached the spot, Neku Khan and others who were armed with lathis, assaulted them and they acted in their right of self defence. They produced three witnesses in their defence and also produced more than 30 documents.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned P. P. and have gone through the record.