Dua, J. - (1.) These two connected appeals by special leave, Crl. A. 179 of 1969 being by five appellants and Crl. A. 180 of 1969 by one, arising out of one criminal trial, are directed against the judgment and order of the Rajasthan High Court dated April 9, 1969. Facts giving rise to these appeals may now be stated:29 accused persons, including the six appellants before us, were committed by the sub-divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh to stand their trial for various offences, broadly stated, under Ss. 302, 332, 325, 324 read with S.149, I.P.C.and under S.307 or in the alternative under S.307 read with section 149, I.P.C. Some of them were also charged under S.148, I.P.C. and the remaining under S.147, I.P.C. It is unnecessary for the purpose of the present appeal to give more precise details about the charges. The occurrence giving rise to the trial took place on April 12, 1967 at about 10.30 a.m. near the thrashing floor of Kanhaiya, appellant, against whom a money decree had been secured by Shyamlal (P.W.12). In execution of that decree Shyamlal had obtained a warrant of attachment on April 11, 1967 in respect of the crop belonging to Kanhaiya and lying at his thrashing floor. On the morning of April 12, 1967 Raghubir Saran (P. W. 16) Nazar of the court of Munsif, Lachmangarh and Ghasi Singh (P.W. 10) peon of the same court along with Jawaharlal, police constable and Shyamlal, decree-holder, went to the thrasing floor of the judgment-debtor, Kanhaiya. On seeing them Kanhaiya, appellant, warned Raghubir Saran and his companions against proceeding with the attachment, threatening them that if they did so they would get killed. Raghubir Saran, (P.W.16) having become conscious of the danger arising out of the threat given by the judgment-debtor, sent Ghasi Singh (P. W.10) to request the Munsif to provide police assistance. As a result, Shrilal, head constable (P.W.11), along with four more police constables arrived at the spot. In the meantime Kanhaiya, judgment-debtor, also collected a large number of persons armed with Pharsis and lathis and they all threatened the Nazar and police officials with dire consequences if they did not leave the place. Accordingly, there was some hue and cry, hearing which Sampat Meena (the deceased) and his son Girraj (P.W.1) came out of their house and on learning of the dispute between Kanhaiya on the one side and the Court Nazar and the policemen on the oher, they, along with some other persons proceeded to the spot. Girraj, it may be pointed out, had been elected Sarpanch in 1961. In 1964, however, he was not elected as Sarpanch but his father Sampat Meena was elected Panch in that year. On reaching Kanhaiya's thrashing floor Sampat Meena entreated with Kanhaiya and his associates not to quarrel with the Government servants and advised them to settle the matter peacefully and amicably. On this intervention on the part of Sampat Meena, Kanhaiya, Judgment-debtor, shouted to his companions that he (Sampat Meena) was the root cause of the whole trouble and should, therefore, be first done away with. Having thus addressed his associates Kanhaiya along with Mangal and Lachman, pounched upon Sampat Meena and gave him blows with Pharsis on his head. Shrilal, head constable, in his attempt to rescue Sampat Meena advised the latter to run away. Sampat Meena thereupon tried to leave the place. But the assailants chased him crying "marlo, marlo" and caught him as he stumbled in his attempt to escape. Dhanna, and Sheodan, accused, surrounded him and gave him further pharsi blows on his head as a result of which he fell down on the ground. Ramsahal, accused, also gave sampat Meena a pharsi blow on his chest. Girraj (P.W.1) requested the assailants not to beat his father but it only served to provoke the accused Gulla, Gokul and Kalyan to beat him (Girraj) as well. During the course of the occurrence Shrilal, head constable (P. W. 11) Kanhaiyalal (P. W. 15) Shyamlal, decree-holder (P.W.12), Girraj (P.W.1) Prahlad Singh, police constable, Sampat son of Bhoma Jat, Arjun Jogi, Kanhaiya (appellant) and Devi Ram and Sheodan, accused, received injuries. First information report was lodged by Shrilal, Head Constable (P.W.11) at about 11.45 a.m. at the police station Lachmangarh the same day. As Sampat Meena's condition became precarious he was immediately removed to the hospital at Lachmangarh but he could not survive the injuries and expired by the time he reached Lachmangarh.
(2.) In the trial court all the accused, except Kanhaiya, judgment-debtor, had denied the prosecution story by merely pleading ignorance and Laxman had pleaded alibi and produced two witnesses in support thereof. Kanhaiya, appellant, had, to quote from the judgment of the trial court, "admitted that the Nazir and the police officials had come for the attachment and that he told them that he would not allow them to affect the attachment, whereupon they went away from the spot and he also went away to his other field. Then the police came and arrested him". The learned Sessions Judge convicted Kanhaiya, Mangal, Ramsahai, Dhanna, Sheodan, Prabhati, Gokul, Kalyan, Gulla and Deviram for offences under Ss. 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. They were further convicted under Ss. 332/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a year and half.
(3.) It is unnecessary for the purpose of the present appeals to refer to the conviction of the various accused persons for other offences as no specific point was sought to be made here with respect to those offences. All the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. All the accused were acquitted of the charge under S.307 and of the alternative charge under Ss. 307/149, I.P.C. It may be pointed out that the charge "under section 307 or S.307 read with S.149 I.P.C." was framed with respect to the injuries said to have been inflicted on Girraj. According to Dr. S. B. Mathur (P.W.5) out of the five injuries found on the person of Girraj, fracture of the left index finger was grievous whereas the remaining four injuries were simple, one of them being a more bruise. Considering the nature of these injuries charge under S.307 or S.307 read with S.149, I.P.C. was held unsustainable.;