PALSHIKAR, J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved by the order of conviction passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Udaipur on 21. 1. 84 in Sessions Case No. 46/83, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and verbally canvassed before me.
(2.) WITH the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned P. P. , I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. On reappreciation of the evidence, the story as disclosed by the prosecution witnesses is that on 13. 5. 83 at 11. 30 AM while Nathu Lal, Head Master, Government Secondary School, Puthawda, was sitting in his office, the accused came there and assaulted him for failing Chaman Singh s/o Bheru Singh, who is the accused. On the basis of this report, investigation was conducted and the appellants as aforesaid were prosecuted. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses in support of its case and the learned trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence, convicted the accused as aforesaid, being aggrieved by this conviction, the appeal is directed against the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before me by the learned counsel. The complainant Nathu Lal has deposed as P. W. 1. He has stated that on 13. 5. 83 he was sitting in the room of his school at 11. 30 AM, three accused came in his office and asked him how Chaman Singh has failed in the examination. His statement needs to be considered in vernacular, which reads as under:- Hks: flag us esjk xyk idm+ fy;ka rhuksa eqyfteku ds ikl ykfb;ka Fkha 'kehkq flag us esjs ykrksa xqllksa ls rfkk yky flag us esjs ydm+h ls ekjha ekjihv ls esjs 'kjhj ij pksvsa vkbz rfkk nkar fgyus yx x;ka ml le; esjs dejsa esa psukjke lgk;d v/;kid Hkh Fkka psukjke us eq> s cpkus dk iz;kl fd;k rks eqyfteku us mlds lkfk Hkh /kdk/kwe dh ijurq fdl eqyfte us dh eq> s irk ughaa eq> s cpkus ds fy, ckgj ls ykyqjke] Hkojh ckbz o ca'khyky Hkh vk x;s Fksa esa Ldwy ds dejsa esa csbk gqvk ?kvuk ds le; Ldwy dk dk;z dj jgk Fkka esaus Fkkus esa fjiksvz izn'kz ih 8 viuh dyeh nlr[krh is'k dh Fkh ftlds vk/kkj ij izn'kz ih 9 ds }kjk eqdek dk;e fd;k x;k Fkka izn'kz ih 9 ij esjs glrk{kj , ls ch gsaa izn'kz ih 10 esjh miflfkfr esa cuk;k x;k Fkk ftl ij esjs glrk{kj , ls ch gsaa esjs lkfk ekjihv djus ds ckn rhuksa eqyfteku eq> s tcjnlrh [khap dj esjs dejsa ls ckgj cjkens esa yk;sa cjkensa esa Hkh esjs lkfk bu eqyfteku us ekjihv dh Fkha** The cross examination of this witness is inconsequential. P. W. 2 Dr. Navin Sharma has deposed that 8th rib of Nathu Lal was fractured. P. W. 4 Chaina Ram is an eye witness, who corroborates what has been stated by Nathu Lal. P. W. 5 Bhanwari Bai is still another eye witness, who has deposed that she had gone to take water and say the accused belabouring the victim. P. W. 6 Lalu Ram states that when he reached, the fighting was over. P. W. 7 Raman Lal is witness of recovery of the stick. From this evidence, it is abundantly clear that the accused persons had assaulted the victim. As there is fracture of the 8th rib of victim, there is, therefore, clear proof of the fact that the accused intended to murder the victim, who was saved by the intervention of Chaina Ram and thus, they have committed the offence of attempting to commit murder. There is nothing in the evidence of these persons which would require that they should be disbelieved. There is nothing in the entire prosecution story which creates any doubt.
(3.) IT is extremely unfortunate that a Head Master was brutally assaulted by the parents of a student because the student failed in the examination. Such act must be condemned and I see no reason for any leniency in the circumstances. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants are on bail for last more than 15 years and it would be gravely unjust to put them back behind the bars. I am unable to accept such request as in my opinion, such persons deserve to be behind the bars for the heinous crime they have committed by beating the Teacher. I have no hesitation in confirming the order of conviction and maintaining the sentence as imposed by the learned trial Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the bail granted earlier to the appellants is cancelled and they are ordered to serve out the remaining sentence. Let a copy of this order be sent immediately to the trial court. .;