NENA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 29-1-98 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Balotra whereby he convicted the appellants under S. 325/34, 324/34 and 323. Instead of sentencing them he ordered the release of the appellants on probation and further ordered them to (pay) compensation of Rs. 4,000/- to Bagda Ram, injured.

(2.) The admitted facts of the case are that an occurrence had taken place on 28-2-97 at 5 p.m. in village Gudanal for which both the parties lodged first information reports, and both the parties were challaned. Mr. Choudhary informed that both the cases were decided by the trial Court on 29-1-98 and in both the cases, the parties were released on probation but in the instant case compensation was also directed to be paid by the appellant.

(3.) In the FIR Ex. P-1 lodged by Gila Ram P.W. 1 it was stated that when he was in his field and his brother Bagda Ram was going to his house accused Nena Ram, Bhabuta Ram, Deeparam, Smt. Antiyo, Smt. Dariya and Miss Saurabh armed with Dhariya, axe and lathis attacked him and hurling abuses, gave beatings to him and when he (first informant) rushed to intervene he was also given beatings. On this report, a case under S. 447, 441, 143 and 323, IPC and S. 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. After the completion of the investigation the police submitted a challan against 3 appellants only. Charges under S. 324/34, 325/34 and 323/34, IPC and S. 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were framed against them, who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Gila Ram, P.W. 2 Bagda Ram, P.W. 3 Basant Puri, P.W. 4 Pukhraj, P.W. 5 Bakhta, P.W. 6 Hukmaram and P.W. 7 Dr. Sureshchandra Somani. Accused in their statements under S. 313, Cr. P.C. denied accusation. Their case was that in the occurrence they were given beatings by the complainant party. Nena Ram gave evidence in defence. The learned Special Judge held that the charge under S. 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act was not proved. He further held that it was a case of free fight and the accused were not entitled to the plea of right of self-defence. He convicted the appellants as stated above.