MILAP CHAND JAIN,J. - (1.) THESE two appeals : one by the accused Gopi through jail and the other by the accused Gopi, Pratap and Nanda are directed against the judgment dated March 24, 1975 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh whereby the accused appellant Gopi was convicted of the offence under Sections 302 and 447 IPC and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first count and to 3 months 'rigorous imprisonment on the second count and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -, in default to undergo 15 days' rigorous imprisonment. The accused -appellants Pratap and Nanda were convicted of the offences under ss. 325, 324 and 447 IPC and each one of them was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment on the first count; and 4 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -, in default to undergo 15 days' rigorous imprisonment on the second count and 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/ -, in default to under 15 days' rigorous imprisonment on the third count. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE other accused Uda was admonished after holding him guilty of the offence under Section 323 IPC and the remaining two accused person, viz., Dhanni and Kanku were acquitted of the offences with which they were charged. The investigation in this case stated on the basis of the report lodged by Pratap son of Bhura resident of Salera on July 8, 1973 at 7.30 p.m. where in it has been alleged that the occurrence took place on that very day at about 2 p.m. According to the prosecution, the land of the complainant party and the accused party are adjacent to each other. According to the complainant party, a strip of land which was actually the part of the complainant party's land was shown by the accused party and in respect of which, protest was made by Pratap son of Bhura. At that time, his son Nana, his nephew Lehru and his daughter Ratti were present there and they started sowing ground nuts in their field. When objection was raised, it is alleged that Gopi, Uda, Pratap and Nanda armed with axe and sticks opened an attack. Pratap and Gopi were armed with axe and Uda and Nanda were armed with sticks. The axe blow was inflicted on the head of Pratap and further blows were inflicted on his hands. Injuries were also inflicted on Nana and Lehru. It is alleged that Ratti then ran away from the spot and brought Ganesh, the brother of Pratap son of Bhura and Moti on the scene of occurrence. Ganesh and Moti intervened but they were also inflicted blows with lathies and axe. Accused Gopi inflicted axe blow on the head of Ganesh and the accused Pratap inflicted axe blow on Gopi. Accused Uda and Nanda also inflicted blows on Ganesh and Moti. A role has also been assigned to the wife of Gopi (Mst. Kanku) and also to Dhani who is daughter of the accused Pratap. Chhoga Gujar, Hira Jat, Madhu Jat and others of the village Saleta came there and the injured persons were removed in a bullock cart to Salera. Ganesh succumbed to his injuries. A case under Sections 302, 307, 174, 149 and 148 IPC was registered.
(3.) IT may be stated that counter case was lodged against the members of the complainant party on the report of Gopi son of Uda Gujar. That report is Ex. D. 14. It was lodged on that very day at 6 pm. The version of the accused -party which is complainant party in that case is that they were inflicted blows and the members of the complainant party in this case came armed with axe and lathies and in that occurrence, Gopi, Pratap and Uda received injuries. Gopi received four injuries, out of which, three were contusions and one was lacerated wound on scalp frontal region. Uda received two injuries : one lacerated wound on occipital region and the other lacerated wound on left shoulder. As a result of these injuries, he sustained fractures of the base of the left acromin with multiple fragements. The fracture was of the Glenoid cavity. Pratap received as many as 9 injuries and 9th injury was multiple small contusions. 7 injuries were bruises and contusions and two injuries were lacerated wounds; one on the frontal region and the other on the forearm. The complainant party in that case came forward with a story that the strip of land which is said to be in dispute was in their possession as it was demarcated in their favour.;