JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of Sessions Judge Jhalawar, dated January 15,1982 convicting the accused -appellants as under:

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this case are that a report Ex. P 1 was lodged by one Mansingh son of Balvant Singh at Police Station, Jhalawar at 11.45 a.m wherein it was mentioned by him that today morning at about 11.00 a.m. he protested to Bheru as his cattle had damaged his maize crop. He had warned him that he should keep them properly tied else he will take them to the cattle -pond, Bheru thereupon gave him filthy abuses and to retaliate in the evening at about 5 -6 p.m. when he was sitting on stone -slabs near outpost and was busy talking to Jaswant Singh and Gani Forest Guards. He accompanied by 7 other accused who were armed with various weapons arrived there. Bheru called him with bad names and exhorted that he should be beaten. Saying so Bheru gave one blow by an axe on his left parietal region. Balchand also gave a Fursi blow on his head which hit him on the right temporal region. Jagdish inflicted Farsi blow on the left side back. Prahlad gave injuries by Lathi. Harji came to his rescue but he too was beaten. His son -in -law Kalian Singh also arrived who too was beaten by Balchand, as a result of which he fell down. Then Jaswant Singh, Hemraj etc. took them to Suket and from there they were taken Co the Police Station where the report was lodged. On receipt a case for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, IPC was registered and investigation commenced. The complainant -injured was got medically examined by Medicolegal Jurist of Government Hospital, Jhalawar. Some of the injuries on the person of Man -smgh and Kalian Singh were found to be grievous, The police after investigating the case submitted a charge -sheet against as many as 7 accused persons, namely, Balchand, Jagdish, Bhagchand, Devilal, Prahlad, Chhotia and Bheru for offence Under Sections 147, 323, 325 and 307 read with Sections 149, IPC. Accussd were committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were read over to the accused to which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in support of its case. Accused did not lead the defence evidence Learned Sessions Judge acquitted Devilal, Bhagchand and Chhotia of all the offences and cancelled their bail bonds. He how ever, convicted the remaining four accused namely, Bheru, Prahlad, Jagdish and Balchand. Bheru and Balchand given benefit of Section 360, Cr. PC. While the accused -appellants Jagdish and Prahlad have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence this appeal preferred.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor supports the judgment of the trial court and submitted that the accused persons had gone after deciding that they have to take revenge from the complainant party who had deprived them from grazing their cattle in their field and threatened to take cattle -pond. It is submitted that there is over -whelming evidence on record to the story given in the FIR and the medical evidence also corroborates the same. It is submitted that there is no warrant for interference in the findings of the trial court.