LEDIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.7.81 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, convicting the appellant Ledia for the offence under Sec. 307 Penal Code and awarding a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. five thousand and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. Out of amount of fine of Rs. five thousand, a sum of Rs. three thousand has been directed to be paid to victim Chandu as compensation.

(2.) The brief facts are that on 11.6.1979, Dakhli w/o Chandu lodged an oral FIR at the Police Station, Hanumangarh, stating inter alia that in the morning at about 9 AM while she was plastering her house, her husband Chandu, injured, was sitting outside the house and her daughter Sugani was standing in the lane outside the house. She called her daughter Sugani. At that time, her neighbour Soni w/o accused Ledia asked her as to why she was abusing her. This led to quarrel between her on the one side and two ladies viz., Soni and Chidia on the other side. At that time, accused Ledia armed with a Gandasi alongwith other accused persons Gunia, Dayala and Tidia armed with lathies arrived there and started beating them. Accused Ledia with an intention to kill her husband Chandu, inflicted a Gandasi blow on his head, on account of which he fell down. All the other accused persons also gave him beating by lathies and gandasies. On this information, police registered a case for the offences under Sections 307, 323 and 34 IPC. The injured Chandu was examined by the doctor. After usual investigation, police filed a chalian against four accused persons viz., appellant Ledia and other accused persons Gunia, Dayala and Tidia for the offences under Sections 307, 323 read with 34 IPC. Appellant Ledia alongwith others was charged for the offences under sections 307, 323 read with 34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined nine witnesses and produced certain documents. The trial Court held the accused appellant guilty of the offence under section 307 Penal Code but acquitted the other accused persons.

(3.) Assailing the judgment of conviction, Mr. D.K. Purohit contended that there are large number of infirmities in the prosecution case, which clearly indicates that a false case has been foisted. It is also submitted that injured Chandu (PW 5) has tried to change the place of incident from 'gali' to 'inside the house'. It is also submitted that there is no evidence to show that the appellant had any intention to kill injured Chandu. Thus, the submission of learned counsel is that the conviction of appellant cannot travel beyond 323 Penal Code and in any case beyond 325 IPC.