LAWS(RAJ)-1991-7-3

SAJID KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On July 30, 1991
SAJID KHAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, appellants, namely, Sajid Khan, Majid Khan, Ashraf, Bhondu, Boti, Sultan Surajmal, Himmat, Hasmal,budh Singh, & Jhuha Mev have challenged their impugned conviction & sentences which are thus - All appellants U/s 307/149, IPC 4 years RI with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, further 6 months RI. Sajid U/s. 325/149, IPC 2 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, 3 months RI further. Sajid and all other U/s 324, IPC. U/s 324/149, IPC 1 year's RI with a fine of Rs. 150/-, in default, 2 months RI further. All appellants U/s 147, IPC 6 months RI with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, 1 month's RI further. All appellants except Sajid,majid & Budh Singh U/s. 323, IPC 3 month's RI.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial, it is evident that the genesis of the incident was that a squabble took place at a well where, Mst. Chhotki w/o Jahur Khan had went for drawing water and a buffalo of Sajid Khan came at the spot and broke the pitcher thereby there were some hot exchanges in between Sajid Khan &. Mst. Chhotki and the complaint of which was made by the complainant party to Bhondu (appellant ). Shri Balwada further urged that quarrel took place in between the parties and cross-reports came to be lodged in with regard to an incident which took place on 14. 4. 81 in between 5 & 6 p. m. F. I. R. No. 41/81 against the appellants was registered at police station Kherli upon a written report of Juhur Khan, whereas cross case against the complainant party was registered on the basis of the report lodged by appellant, Majid Khan, under F. I. R. No. 42/81. According to the appellants, they have come with clean hands and have stated specifically in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. many of the people from the complainant party came to Bhondu's hut when he was smoking tobacco pipe while his son, Majid and Sajid Khan were cutting fodder, and that, Jumma, Juhur Khan, Dalkhan, Sumer, Mamman and Fajru-persons from the complainant party who were armed with lathis except Jumma who was having a Farsi, and all of them suddenly opened an assault on Majid Khan and Sajid Khan to which Bhondu interrupted but they being in aggressive mood, Jumma out of them inflicted a farsi blow from reverse side on the head of Bhondu, while Dalkhan inflicted a lathi blow on the left shoulder of Bhondu rather other persons among them inflicted blows with their respective weapons in their hand on the family members of Bhondu. It had also been stated that despite efforts to cool down them, the complainant party continued to inflict blows without any heed to their persuasives. The appellants in their evidence adduced under Section 313, Cr. P. C. admitted that they caused injuries on the persons of the complainant party but in their right of private defence only when they reached to the conclusion that the complainant party was adament to inflict severe blows without any rhyme.

(3.) THE prosecution has come with belied version. According to it, the accused parly had come with deadly weapons at the fields of Rewada forming unlawful assembly, whereas, according to the material on record itself, the appellants had formed no unlawful assembly at that time. Moreover, the presence of the complainant party at the field of Rewada also creats doubt. THE prosecution has failed to clarify that the appellants had come with a common object. Had they come with common object then the appellant could have opened assault at the fields or the residence of the complainant party, while, the incident is alleged to have taken place at the field of Rewada. THErefore, the prosecution version full of incongruities stands unfounded as it causes reasonable doubt where the defence version is seemingly truthful and it probablises its version plausible.