RANJIT SINGH,J - (1.) THIS order will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 1411-SB of 2001 and Criminal Revision No. 912 of 2002 as these are directed against the common judgment.
(2.) A minor bickering between two families about their manure pits existing adjoining to each other, has led to this conviction of the appellants under Section 307 IPC and other offences and the award of various sentences. They have filed appeal to impugn their conviction and the sentence. On 8.10.1996, Snehlata (PW-6) and her daughter Saroj (PW-10) were preparing dung cakes in their manure pit allotted to them at the time of consolidation. The appellants were un-loading their camel cart filled with manure at their manure pit, adjoining the pit of complainant Snehlata. Appellants statedly asked Snehlata not to prepare dung cakes in their manure pit. Snehlata, in turn, replied that she was doing so in her own manure pit. Appellants statedly asked her to leave the place immediately. Snehlata and her daughter returned to their house located nearby and accosted the appellants to raise the issue in the presence of male members of their family. Upon this, Fateh Singh threatened complainant to teach her a lesson. They all then entered the house of Snehlata armed with weapons. Fateh Singh, Kishori, Shish Ram were carrying spade, whereas Rani and Santosh were armed with lathis. Appellant Fateh Singh allegedly gave blow with the axe on the head of Snehlata. Rajender Prashad (PW-7), elder brother of husband of Snehlata, intervened when Fateh Singh gave another blow on his head. Rajender Prashad fell down when Shish Ram gave blow on his face with the axe carried by him. Kishori appellant is also alleged to have given blow with axe on his head, whereas Santosh allegedly gave a lathi blow on the left hand of Snehlata. Rani is also alleged to have given a lathi blow on the left eye. Rajender Prashad became unconscious. His son Ashok Kumar (PW-5) intervened when Rawat gave blow with the spade on his back. Rawat is further alleged to have given another blow from spade on his left hand. Rani and Santosh are attributed blows with danda to Smt. Shanti and Saroj, grand- mother and cousin of Ashok Kumar. Fateh Singh is also alleged a blow with axe on the head of Saroj. Allegations of blows to different persons with their respective weapons carried by the appellants are also alleged. When the injured cried for help, Satbir (PW-2), Ajit, Hari Singh (PW-3) and Jai Singh (PW-9) got attracted to the scene. They rescued the victims from the clutches of the appellants. The appellants had left the place extending threat to the injured. The injured were removed to Civil Hospital, Mahendergarh. Rajender and Snehlata were referred to PGIMS, Rohtak for treatment. On a statement made by Ashok Kumar, FIR was recorded. The arrest of the appellants followed. After recovery of the weapons and the blood stained clothes etc., the investigation was proceeded further. The injury on the head of Snehlata was declared dangerous to life, whereas injury suffered by Rajender Prashad was declared grievous. On completion of investigation, the appellants were put to trial for offences under Sections 148, 324, 325, 452, 326, 307, 308, 506 IPC. Accused Santosh was found innocent and shown in column No.2. Appellants Kishori, Shish Ram, Rawat and Fateh Singh were found guilty under Sections 323, 324, 452 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Offences under Sections 326 and 506 IPC were not found proved and they were accordingly acquitted in these sections. Charge against Shashi @ Rani was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and she was acquitted. The appellants, who were convicted, were sentenced to suffer different sentences as under:- a) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 307 IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; b) To undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC; c) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 IPC; and d) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 452 IPC. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
(3.) THE appellants have now filed the present appeal. Mr. Salil Bali, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has raised a limited plea in support of the appeal filed by the appellants. He would say that the nature and gravity of injuries could not be properly established by admissible evidence on record. Co-relating this plea with the evidence on record, the counsel would submit that the prosecution was unable to prove the offence under Section 307 IPC. According to the counsel, at the most offence under Section 308 IPC may be made out from the facts as established. He has accordingly restricted his plea to this limited extent for converting the conviction of the appellants from offence under Section 307 to 308 IPC. It is seen from the record that it was even submitted before the trial court at the time of framing of charge that offence under Section 307 IPC was not made out from the facts in this case. However, this submission of the defence was not accepted by the court and the appellants were charged for offence under Sections 307 as well as other offences.;