SUJIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated July 27, 1981 convicting and sentencing the accused -appellants as under:

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that on March 28, 1979 at 5.00 p.m. a report was lodged at police station, Bagru by one Hanuman Prasad Yadav (PW 8) wherein it was alleged by him that his sister Harphool is living at Nari Ka Bas, police station, Bagru About 2 -3 days before lodging the report his sister bad some altercation with Sujia Jat, Kana and Mangla Ram regarding cutting of the grass. On 28 -3 -1979 a Panchayat was arranged for compromise where Sujiaram, Manglaram Gopal, Kana etc were also called This Panchayat was held at 2.00 in that noon but Sujiaram, Kana, Mangla and Gopal left the Panchayat and returned with various weapons from their house. Kanaram was armed with a lathi, Gopal with an axe, Sujia and Mangla with sticks. They were also accompanied with Kana's mother Jeti, Sujia's wife Rampiari and Kana's wife Koyali. All of them had common object and as soon as they arrived there Sujia gave a lathi blow on his head, Kana also gave a lathi blow as a result of which his shirt and banian were smeared with blood When his son Kuldeep Singh came to his rescue Gopal Jat gave an axe blow on his head which struck him on his forehead. Ladies also beat his son with shoes and sticks. Ramnath Ahir, Sujia Ahir, Ramu Ahir and Ram Sahai intervened and he along with his son has come to lodged the report. On receipt of this report a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 323, IPC was registered Dr. Govind Singh, Medical Officer Incharge of Bani Park Dispensary examined the injured -complainants. Hanuman Prasad sustained following two injuries:

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor supports the prosecution story and submitted that the trial court has thoroughly discussed the evidence and there is no warrant for interference in this appeal. It is submitted that the injuries sustained by Kuldeep was a serious injury resulting in the fracture of the frontal bone and it cannot be said this injury was caused in exercise of right of private defence. It is submitted that there is overwhelming evidence on record to substantiate that there was a Panchayat and accused were also present in that Panchayat but when they were asked to furnish the bonds for rot repeating incident in future, they left the Panchayat and returned with weapons of offence. Thus, they were clearly aggressors.