- (1.) Aforementioned two appeals and revision petition are directed against the judgment dated 27/9/2006 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Karauli in Sessions Case No.4/2004 (State Vs. Kesariya & Ors.) thereby, convicted & sentenced the accused in the following manner:- Accused-appellant Bharat Lal was convicted for u/Ss.302 & 323 IPC & acquitted from offence u/Ss.148 & 324 IPC giving him benefit of doubt. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for offence u/S.302 IPC with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default thereof, he was sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months and was additionally sentenced for simple imprisonment of one year for offence u/S.323 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. His period of police custody w.e.f. 15/12/2002 to 19/12/2002 and period of judicial custody w.e.f. 20/12/2002 to 27/09/2006 was directed to be merged in the originally awarded sentence. Accused Kesariya was convicted for u/Ss.324 & 323 IPC & acquitted from offence u/Ss.148 & 302 IPC giving him benefit of doubt. He was released on probation u/S.4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act considering that he is 70 years of age upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,000/- with the surety in the like amount with the stipulation to maintain peace and be of good behaviour and shall not repeat the similar offence in future and shall appear before the court as when directed. Accused-Smt.Dholi @Mewa, Battilal, Ramsahay, Smt.Narvada & Smt.Mausam were convicted for offence u/S.323 IPC & acquitted from offence u/Ss.302/149, 324/149 & 148 IPC giving them benefit of doubt. They were released on probation u/S.4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act considering that Smt.Dholi @Mewa, Smt.Narvada & Smt.Mausam are women upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,000/- with the surety in the like amount with the stipulation to maintain peace and be of good behaviour and shall not repeat the similar offence in future and shall appear before the court as when directed. Accused-Kesariya, Smt.Dholi @Mewa, Battilal, Ramsahay, Smt.Narvada & Smt.Mausam were additionally directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- each u/S.5(1)(A) of the Probation of Offenders Act and on deposition of the same, Rs.2500/- was directed to be paid to complainant-Dharam Singh, Rs.1500/- to Keshanti, Rs.1500/- to Jailal and Rs.500/- to Ravi.
(2.) While D.B.Criminal Appeal No.1079/2006 has been filed by appellant-Bharat Lal against his conviction u/Ss.302 & 323 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment, D.B.Criminal Appeal No.1608/2007 upon grant of leave has been allowed to be filed by the State only against acquittal of accused Kesariya, Battilal and Ramsahay of the charges for offence u/Ss.148, 323, 324, 324/149, 302 & 302/149 IPC. D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1277/2006 has been filed by complainant-Dharam Singh Meena against acquittal of accused-appellant from offence u/Ss.148 & 324 IPC, acquittal of accused-Kesariya from offence u/Ss.148 & 302 IPC and acquittal of accused-Smt.Dholi @Mewa, Battilal, Ramsahay, Smt.Narvada and Smt.Mausam from offence u/Ss.302/149, 324/149 & 148 IPC, which revision was also admitted only against accused Kesariya, Battilal & Ramsahay.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that first information report bearing FIR No.183/2002 was registered with Police Station Kudgaon on Parcha Bayan (Exh.P.1) of injured-Dharam Singh Meena (PW1) inter-alia stating that at 8.30-9.00 a.m. on 13/12/2002, he, Munshi (his brother) and his uncle Jailal were watering their crops of grain in the agriculture field from the diesel pump installed at the well. Suddenly, Kesariya, who was armed with gandasi, came there and required Munshi to switch-off the motor-pump, which he did. Soon thereafter, Brijlal armed with dharia, Bharat Lal armed with dharia, Ramsahay @Ramlal armed with gandasi, Battilal armed with danda, Mausam armed with pharsa and Narvada armed with lathi came there. They encircled the members of the complainant-party. Accused-Kesariya inflicted gandasi blow on the head of complainant-Dharam Singh Meena, Brijlal inflicted dharia blow on his head, which he received on shoulder, Mausam inflicted pharsa blow from reverse side at the back of the complainant and Battilal inflicted lathi blow on the back of the complainant. When Munshi, uncle Jailal and wife Keshanti came to his rescue, they were also beaten by the accused. Accused-appellant Bharat Lal inflicted dharia blow on the head of Munshi, who fell down. Then, accused Mausam inflicted pharsa blow from reverse side on his person. Narvada inflicted lathi blow, Battilal inflicted lathi blow and Dholi inflicted danda blow, resultantly, Munshi received severe injuries. Keshanti also received injuries. Ramsahay inflicted gandasi blow on the head of Keshanti, Battilal inflicted lathi blow on the elbow of Keshanti, Bharat Lal inflicted gandasi blow from reverse side on her shoulder. When Jailal came to their rescue, Bharat Lal inflicted dharia blow on his head, Brijlal inflicted blow on his back, Battilal inflicted blows on his fingers and Kesariya caused injuries to the legs of Jailal. When child Ravi S/o Munshi came there, Dholi inflicted danda blow on his head. Accused left Munshi only after considering him to be died. On hearing their hues and cries, Ramraj, Man Singh etc. came to their rescue. The accused thereafter ran towards the forest. Munshi and Jailal fell down on the ground due to the injuries received by them. Condition of Munshi was quite serious and blood was oozing from his head. They took Man Singh, Munshi, Jailal, Keshanti and Ravi to Kudgaon on a camel cart and therefrom, all of them were brought to the hospital at Karauli. Since condition of Munshi was critical, he was referred to the hospital at Jaipur, where he succumbed to his injuries on the following day i.e. on 14/12/2002 at 8.30 a.m. In the FIR, which was registered initially for offence u/Ss.307, 147, 148 IPC, offence of Section 302 IPC was added. The police after investigation, filed challan against seven accused persons, named above. The prosecution examined total twenty five witnesses and exhibited thirty seven documents, whereas defence in support of its case, produced one witness and exhibited eleven documents. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused in the manner stated above.;