PYARA & ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.12.1981 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara convicting the appellants as under :

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.5.1981 Mod Singh lodged a written FIR at Police Station. Bijolia stating inter alia that in village Satpuria there is 3 big has of land in his name. Rest of 3 bighas land is in the name of his brother Shankar. He further stated that he had called Kuka, Balu, Mangi Lal, Lal Chand for the construction of the boundary walls. They were collecting stones. At Jut 2.30 p.m. the accused persons Pyara Singh, Gopal and Jaswant Singh arrived at the field with a common intention to cause them hurt. He also stated that Gopal was armed with Kulhadi and the other two accused persons Jaswant Singh and Pyara were armed with lathis. Gopal gave a Kulhadi blow on the head. On this information, the Police registered a case of offence under sections 147, 148, 307 & 323 Penal Code and proceeded with an investigation.

(3.) The police submitted a charge-sheet against the three accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial Court found that Gopal gave a Kulhadi blow on the head of Balu from the opposite side of the Kulhadi and other accused persons shared common intention with Gopal for causing grievous hurt to the complainant party. In view of this the appellants have been convicted as stated above. I have heard Mr. Upadhayay, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ramesh Purohit, Addl. Public Prosecutor. It is contended by Mr. Upadhayay that there is a discrepancy with respect to the weapon carried by accused Gopal. He further submits that there is no sharp edged injury on the body of injured Balu and as such it cannot be said that Gopal gave a Kulhadi blow. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Purohit that Gopal had given blow from the opposite side of the Kulhadi causing hamaton on the head of the injured and as such there is no discrepancy in the prosecution case. The evidence is read before me and it is shown that two other appellants came along with Gopal and left with him and, therefore, there is sufficient evidence to show that both the accused persons shared common intention causing hurt to Balu.