BIRBAL ETC. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of law formulated for the decision of the Bench is in the following terms:

(2.) RAM Sarup deceased along with one Smt. Naraini had tenanted a piece of agricultural land from one Basti Ram of their village. Subsequently, however, they inducted Birbal Appellant as a partner in cultivation in order to have the use of his farm animals. It was agreed between the parties that Birbal Appellant would transport the agricultural produce of gram and fodder to the house of Ram Sarup deceased after the same had been harvested and it would be divided between them according to the agreed shares. On the 2nd of May, 1968, Ram Sarup deceased, Smt. Naraini and Birbal Appellant duly shared the gram crop between them and removed the same to their respective houses. The remaining fodder therefrom, however, continued to lie in the field and was to be divided subsequently. However, on the 3rd of May, 1968, Birbal Appellant removed the entire fodder lying in the fields to his house. On the learning of the same, Ram Sarup deceased along with his wife P.W. Sharbati at about evening time went to the house of Birbal Appellant and remonstrated with him for removing the entire fodder which, according to him, included the undivided shares of the deceased and Smt. Naraini. Manphool Appellant was also present in the house when the protest above -said was made and an altercation between the two Appellants on one side and the deceased and his wife on the other, ensued. Bhagwana and Sheo Karan P.Ws. who were passing in the street adjoining the court -yard were attracted by the commotion and in their presence Birbal Appellant obviously infuriated delivered a lathi blow on the head of Ram Sarup deceased on receipt of which he forthwith fell unconscious to the ground. Thereafter both the Appellants inflicted four or five more injuries on the deceased. P.Ws. Sheo Karan and Bhagwana interceded and rescued the deceased from further injury but he succumbed to those already inflicted after about one hour of the occurrence. The case against the Appellant was registered soon thereafter on the statement of P.W. Sharbati.

(3.) ON the basis of the above -said medical evidence it was plausibly argued that out of the seven injuries on the person of the deceased only two on the head were of a dangerous character which could possibly have resulted in the death whilst the other five were merely contusions on the non -vital parts of the body. Coupled with this is the fact that the prosecution evidence was wholly unspecific regarding the injury inflicted by Manphool Appellant. Whilst the first dang blow on the head was categorically attributed to Birbal Appellant the prosecution evidence thereafter showed that both the Appellants inflicted the rest of the injuries on the body of the deceased without attributing any specific injury to Manphool Appellant. There is thus no conclusive evidence that the second injury on the head of the deceased was the result of any blow by this Appellant and the finding recorded by the trial Court is also to the same effect and is in these terms: