S.I.Jafri - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by Hussaini, Mangali Prasad, Om Prakash, Ram Saran and Ashok Kumar impugning therein the conviction u/Sec. 307/149 IPC, 323/149 IPC and 147 IPC and sentences of 3 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, six months' R. I. and one year's R. I. respectively, recorded by II Addl. Sessions Judge, Gonda in Sessions trial No. 237 of 1981 vide judgment and order dated 7-8-84.
(2.) THE summarised facts crystallising from the FIR as well as from the evidence of the witnesses adduced in this case are to the effect that the complainant Yasin was working as private servant of Sri A. B. Singh, Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Gonda and on the day of occurrence i.e. on 4-1-80, he had come back to his house at 10 or 10.30 A M. At about the same time, when he was cleaning his teeth, accused persons, namely, Om Prakash armed with Knife, Mangali and Hussaini armed with lathies and Ram Saran armed with Danda collected at the door of the complainant and complaining about the inconveniences due to the Chappar erected on the land which had resulted in the blockade of the way to the tank, they commanded the complainant to remove the Chappar, whereupon the complainant retorted that the land over which he had erected the Chappar belongs to him and he would not remove the Chappar. Out of the accused persons, Mangali became enraged and inflicted injuries by means of the Lathi on the head of the complainant. THE complainant screamed for help whereupon all the accused persons, who were possessed with lathi and Danda, began to shower blows on him. Accused Om Prakash who had knife in his hand, belaboured him with fists and legs and also extended threats to stab anyone who advances forward. First to come for the rescue of the complainant was his mother Khatoon, who was also attacked and injuries were inflicted on her person by the accused persons. THE complainant's brother's wife, who was watching the incident from the door of the house, also raised an alarm. THE persons who were attracted by the screams of the complainant, included Jhamman, Musibat and Ramzan. He got the report of the incident scribed from a stranger and went to the Police Station for lodging the same. However, there was some delay in registering the case at the Police Station owing to the fact that it was election on that date and majority of the police personnel including Head Moharrir of the police station were busy in the election duty, and hence the FIR could be lodged at 12.10 hours on 4-1-80. Injuries on the persons of the victims were examined at 12.35 hours and 1.05 P.M. the same day at district Hospital Gonda. Injured Yasin suffered as many as 12 injuries while her mother Khatoon sustained as may as 3 injuries on her person. Injuries or injured Yasin consist of 11 contusions and one lacerated wound. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and all of them took the plea of alibi and attributed their false implication in the case owing to the fact that a joint application against the raising of wall and placing of Chappar on the land had been moved by the Mohalla People in the Nagar Palika Gonda against the complainant Yasin in which accused persons were also the signatories, which the complainant did not relish and began to bear grudge against the accused persons. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW 4 Khatoon, PW 3 Yasin, complainant and PW 5 Sana, brother's wife of the complainant. Out of the set of the witnesses, two witnesses, namely, PW 3 Yasin and PW 4 Khatoon are injured. However the public witness cited in the FIR became hostile and did not support of the prosecution version.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants pressed number of contentions into service before this court. However the discrepancies and inconsistencies pointed out by the learned counsel are too trivial and imponderable and they cannot be said to be capable of making any dent in the credibility of the testimony given by the prosecution witnesses. The court below has dealt with the infirmities and discrepancies or the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants very competently and in a reasoned way and it has rightly arrived at a conclusion consistent with the guilt of the appellants. The findings arrived at by the trial court are fortified by cogent and convincing reasons and I do not find any infirmity warranting any interference by this court. I have also re-appraised the evidence adduced by the prosecution vis-a-vis the probability of the plea of the defence. In the course of gruelling cross- examination which the witnesses were subjected to, the defence has not been able to spin out any discrepancy rendering the truthfulness of the witnesses in the shadow of reasonable doubt. In the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the conviction recorded against the appellants by the trial court is liable to be affirmed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the occurrence in the instant case had taken place in the year 1980 and since then both the parties are living in complete harmony and peace. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that it would serve no useful purpose in case the appellants are made to serve out the sentence awarded by the court below, except to open a new chapter of bad-blood and bitterness. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that appellants are the lone bread-winner for their respective families and hence in view of the fact that there has been no further show-down between the parties since the date of the occurrence in the instant case, it would be worth experimenting to afford an opportunity to the appellants as to reform and rehabilitate themselves in the society. The above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants are loaded with substance and I feel that after such a long lapse of time, it would meet the ends of justice if the appellants instead of being sent to jail for serving out the remaining sentences, are sentenced to pay fine and the period of imprisonment already undergone.;