S.S.BYAS, J. - (1.)BY his judgment dated November 19, 1977 the learned Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh convicted and sentenced the three appellants as under: JUDGEMENT_191_TLRAJ0_1984.htm
(2.)SUBSTANTIVE sentences were directed to run concurrently, while these in default of payment of fine consecutively.
Briefly recalled the facts leading to the prosecution and conviction of the appellants are that they and injured victim PW. 2 Onkarlal are resident of village Ketri P.S. Arnod, District Chittorgaih. There was a dispute between them relating to a taking of water to the field of the victim. At about 2 p.m. on 7 -6 -77, PW 2 Onkarlal was returning with his son PW 3 Jagdish aged about 12 -13 years to his house from the temple of Hanumanji, where both of them had gone to 'Darshan'. In the way, when they reached near the well of Shackerji Maharaj, accused Haiderkhan came with a bicycle from the opposite direction and restrained the father and son from proceeding further. A few second later, the other two appellants Sadullakhan and Darankhan also appeared there. Accused Sadullakhau had a lathi with an iron, shod. The other two appellants had ordinary lathis. Tbey made an assault on injured victim Onkarlal and struck blows to him with their lathis. Accused Sadullakhan struck a blow of his lathi en the left hand of the victim, which resulted in a fracture. Accused Sadullakhan thereafter took out a knife and struck some blows with it to the victim Onkarlal raised crais, hearing which PW. 4 Ramchandra came on the spot seeing him the culprits ran away. A written report Ex. P/7 of the occurrence was lodged at about 9.30 a.m. on 8 -6 -77 at police station, Arnod by PW. 4 Ramchandra. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The injuries of the victim were examined on 7 -6 -77 by PW. 1 Dr. G.N. Rai, then the medical officer, General Hospital, Pratabgarh, He found 17 injuries on his person. On X -ray examination, one of these injuries being the fracture of upper third of left under was found grievous The rest were simple. One of the injuries was caused by a sharp weapon while the rest were caused by simple blunt objects. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan under Sections 307, 325 and 324, IPC against the appellants in the court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pratabgarti, who in his turn, committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 324, 325 and 307 read with Section 34, IPC against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused examined one witness Mangilal to prove the age of accused Sadulla Khan. On the completion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution case substantially true. The appellants were, therefore, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. It may be pointed out that the offence under Section 307, IPC was taken as not established in view of the injuries sustained by the injured victim.

(3.)I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 1 have also gone through the case file carefully.