BABU ALIAS OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS S.B. Crminal appeal under Section 374(2), Cr.PC has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1st April, 1981, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, in Sessions Case No. 46/1979, by which accused appellant Babu alias Om Prakash was convicted for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and accused -appellant Satyendra Prakash was convicted for offence Under Section 307, IPC and sentenced to similar imprisonment.

(2.) IT will suffice to state for the purposes of this appeal that Kaloo Lal submitted a written report to SHO, Kunhadi on January 7, 1979 at Kunhadi Petrol Pump, wherein it was alleged that in the morning at about 10 a m. Om Prakash alias Babu and his brother Satyendra Prakash has injured his brother Chittarlal with knife. Lot of blood has oozed from his stomach and he has been admitted in the hospital as his condition was, serious. It was further alleged that his brother was given beatings by Onkar Meena and Kalyan Gurjar also. The quarrel had taken place due to dispute' about 'Bara. Panna Lal, Laxmi Narain and others were mentioned as eyewitnesses of the incident. On receipt of this report, a case under Section 307/34, IPC was registered and challan was filed after completing the investigation. The case was committed to the sessions court for trial from where it was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Kota. After framing the charge against the accused appellants, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case and the accused were examined under Section 313, Cr. PC. All witnesses were produced in denfence. After hearing the parties the trial court convicted the accused appellants as mentioned. Hence this appeal.

(3.) IT is also stated that accused appellant Babulal has stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC that the village -Panchayat had, demarcated the place in 'Bara' over which he was permitted to construct the well as there was dispute between Chittar Lal and the accused appellants regarding that Bara. It is submitted that Chittar Lal was drunken and started abusing when the work of constructing the well on the demarcated line was started. It is also stated by him that he attached him and the accused appellants tried to save himself. Therefore, it is stated by learned Counsel that it is Chittar Lal who had attached the accused -appellant Babu Lal and Chittar Lal has received injuries while the accused -appellants were saving themselves from the attack of Chittarlal. It is also pointed out that accused appellants have produced two witnesses in defence who had also corroborated the defence put up by the accused -appellants.