S.D.BAJAJ, J. - (1.) MAHA Ram accused appellant owned jointly with Kundan Lal deceased a piece of land in village Basai of Mahendergarh district. A neem tree was planted therein by the accused-appellant. Some one broke the tree aforesaid. Maha Ram's suspicion for the alleged mischief fell upon Munshi Ram son of Kundan Lal deceased.
(2.) ON 6th July, 1987 around 11.00 A.M. when Kundan Lal deceased was playing cards, while sitting outside the 'Nohra' of Nathu Ram Ahir in the village aforesaid, accused appellant Maha Ram enquired from the deceased as to wity his son Munshi Ram had broken the neem tree planted by him on the land. Instead of replying in the negative that his son had not done so or denying the charge/accusation levelled against his son, the deceased asked the accused in turn as to who had seen his son Munshi Ram doing so. A wordy duel of hurling abuses upon each other ensued between the accused and the deceased thereafter. On the side of the deceased his son Jaibir came to help his father while on the side of the accused his co-accused Leela Ram intervened. Leela Ram threw a stone on Jaibir which hit him on his left hand and caught hold of his father Kundan Lal deceased from behind. Maha Ram accused pressed the throat of deceased Kundan Lal and throttled his neck unto death. Prabhu Ram, Rang Rao, Chand and Jaibir are stated to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence.
(3.) ON being charged with the commission of offences under section 302 read with section 34 and section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code both the accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Vide his impugned judgment dated the 2nd November, 1987, Sessions Judge, Mahendergarh at Narnaul convicted both the accused aforesaid of the commission of offences aforesaid and vide his order dated 6th November 1987 sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each on the charge under sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to each one of the two accused appellants separately were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court against them, both the accused appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 555-DB of 1987 in this Court.;