BACHNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12-5-1983 passed by the learned AddI. Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar in Sessions Case No. 40/82 whereby accused-appellant Bachna alias Gacha was tried for the offence under Sections 455, 307, 323, 323/34, 324, 324/34, 326 and 326/34 and other accused appellants Amrik Ram and Desh Raj were tried for the offence under Sections 455, 307/34, 323, 323/34, 324, 324/34, 326 and 326/34, IPC. After trial, learned AddI. Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar convicted the accused appellant Bachna alias Gacha for the offence under Sections 326, 324/34, 323/34, IPC and other accused persons under Section 326/34, 324/34, 323/34, IPC. All the three accused persons were- acquitted of the other offences. The aforesaid appeal was preferred by all the three convicted accused persons. During pendency of appeal accused Desh Raj expired. In that view of the matter appeal of appellant No. 3 Desh Raj was ordered to be abated by this Court on 22-9-1999.

(2.) Arguing the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellants has challenged the conviction of the accused Bachna and Amrik Ram. According to the prosecution story, while Simaro and Gurdas injured persons were at their residence the accused came. The injured Simaro bolted their house but the accused were armed with lethal weapons, namely, Bachna had Gandasi, Amrik Ram had Kulhart and Deash Raj had Kassi. They broke open the window and entered in the house. They gave beating to the injured people. The injured Gurdas sustained as many as 26 injuries with fracture of frontal bone right and left perital bone right and left axillary bone and gugatic bone. Other injured Simaro sustained nine injuries.

(3.) The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that accused Arnrik Ram. Bachna and Desh Raj had not trespassed any house. In fact, injured Simaro was living with them and it was their house where the incident has taken place. Learned counsel has also emphasised that accused person Amrik Ram has received seven injuries and Bachna has received seven injuries. No explanation of the injuries to these accused persons is coming forward. In fact, these accused persons were assaulted by the injured persons in their house and therefore, they were aggressors and by their aggression, they have picked up the fight. If the prosecution decides picking up fight and then sustained more injuries, in such circumstance, it cannot be said that accused are liable for the offences alleged. Learned counsel has also stressed that accused-appellants belong to schedule caste and they are poor people and therefore, they should not be awarded stringent punishment. He also stressed that parties have compromised and are peacefully living together.