N.N.MATHUR,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.10.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar convicting the appellants for the offence Under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ -. The appellants have also been convicted for the offence Under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. The appellants have been convicted for the offence Under Section 447 I.P.C. and sentenced to 3 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that on 15.11.1994 at about 6.45 P.M., P.W. 3 injured Banwarilal gave statement Ex.P. 3 to the police stating inter alia that he along with his father Bhagirath had gone to the field at Chak 52 N.P. at about 11:30 A.M. While they were cutting 'Gwar' crop, his uncle Om Prakash his two Sons Kishan and Dilip along with Suresh son of Prithviraj arrived and asked them not to cut the crop. The command was not accepted by them. Accused Kishan and Suresh caught hold of him and threw on the ground. Om Prakash inflicted a knife injury on his neck. Thereafter, Om Prakash and Dilip caught hold his father Bhagirath and threw on the ground. Om Prakash picked up a 'Kassi' and inflicted 2 or 3 blows to his father. He also inflicted injuries to him. Om tried to inflict knife injury on him, but he could catch hold him by hand. He took bite on his neck. The knife from his hand fell down. Appellant Om inflicted injury by knife near his eye. He also inflicted injury on thigh. The accused persons left the field leaving them in injured condition. He slowly moved towards the road. He could get lift in the jeep of Advocate Narendra Singh. He was taken to the hospital. He also stated that his father died on the spot, on account of serious injuries suffered by him. On this statement, police registered a F.I.R. Ex.P -34 and proceeded with investigation. After usual investigation, police laid charge -sheet against Om Prakash alias Amarchand and Suresh Kumar son of Prithviraj for offences Under Sections 447, 323, 324, 325, 307, 307/34, 302, 302/34 I.P.C. During trial, an application Under Sections 193 and 319 Cr.P.C. was moved to implead accused Kishan and Dilip also as accused in the case, By order dated 4.12.1995, they were also added as accused. The appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 17 witnesses and produced number of documents. In their statements Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. Appellant Om Prakash stated that on 13.11.1994, he along with Suresh went to 52 N.P. for cutting the crop. They stayed in the house of Birbal for arranging water supply to their field as per their turn. After availing the turn, they returned to Karanpur. Accused Suresh stayed back in the field. On 15.11.1994 in the morning at 8 O'Clock he went to the field 52 N.P. Suresh was cutting the crop. He also joined him. Both of them collected the 'Gwar'. At about 11:00 deceased Bhagirath and P.W. 3 Banwarilal arrived. They objected cutting the crop in Kila Nos. 8 to 23. They claimed to reap the crop on the ground that it was sown by them. They were armed with Dantli and Sela. Bhagirath caught hold Suresh by hair. They grappled and a quarrel ensued between them. Both the parties received injuries. He also stated that the land was distributed in three persons i.e. Kila No. 1 to 8 in the name of Bhagirath and rest of the land of Kila No. 9 to 25 in his own and in the name of Suresh. He also stated that the land was entered in the joint name of all the three. The defence examined five witnesses in support of the case. The trial court analysing the evidence held that the appellants aggressors and found the charges proved. The learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as noticed above.
(3.) IT is contended by Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia learned Counsel for the appellants that the trial court has committed an error in convicting the appellants solely on the testimony of highly interested and partisan witness namely P.W. 3 Banwarilal. It is also submitted that the defence version is more probable, as prosecution has failed to explain injuries on the person of the complainant party. It is pointed out that appellant Om Prakash has received as many as six grievous injuries. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial court.;