PALSHIKAR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14. 5. 87 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, in Sessions Case No. 3/85, convicting the appellants u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 250/ -. In default, two months regorous imprisonment.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: At about 11. 30 A. M. on 21st October '84 a First Information Report was lodged by one Beeru Ram (PW/3) that on 20th October '84, at about 7. 00 in the evening, Ramji Lal his sons Bhanwra and Raju returned home from the field. At that time accused Daula Ram and his wife Bado were standing in the frount yard 'guwarh' with sticks in their hand. As soon as Ramji Lal abd Bhanwra entered, they started beating them. Raju, younger son of Ramji Lal ran inside the house. Ramji Lal was then felled to the ground and was beaten up. THEn Shanker, s/o Daula came and gave a stick blow on the head of Bhanwra. All the three accused gave stick blows on the head of Ramji Lal and Bhanwra, as a result of which both of them fell unconscious in the fore-ground. Seeing this incident of assault, Chando, w/o Ramji Lal and Raju s/o Ramji Lal shouted, hearing which Mukhram, PW/13 and Ganpat Gir PW/6 came there. THEn also the three accused persons were beating Ramji Lal and Bhanwra with sticks. When one of them tried to separate them, he was also injured. THEn several people came from the village and the accused went home. Ramji Lal and Bhanwra were bleeding. THEy were carried into the house where Bhanwra died at 11. 00 in the night and Ramji Lal was unconscious till the lodging of the report. After the Report was lodged, investigation started, accused persons were arrested and they were charge-sheeted for the offence of sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Penal Code. THEreafter Ramji Lal died and the accused persons were charged u/s 302/34 and tried. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to support its case and the accused examined one witness. The learned Judge, on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion of guilt of the accused and, accordingly, convicted them as aforesaid. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal. The learned Judge has, however, found the appellants not guilty of the offence of causing murder of Bhanwra, as there is no concrete evidence to come to the conclusion that any of them had given any blow to deceased Bhanwra. This finding of the learned Judge is not challenged by the prosecution. We see no reason to take any different view of the matter and we, therefore, affirm that finding. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor, we have carefully scrutinised and reappreciated the evidence on record. The fact that the accused persons assaulted the deceased cannot be disputed. In fact, DW/1 Nand Ram, examined on behalf of the accused states that the accused persons were assaulted by the deceased persons and there was a quarrel between them. This evidence of the defence is corroborated by the testimony of the doctor who examined the accused persons when he states that the injuries caused to the accused persons were simple in nature and the age of the injury was same as the age of injuries on the person of the deceased. There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that both the accused persons did indulge in assault, that there was a fight to prove on record. Taking into consideration the entire evidence and depositions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that assuming the accused persons to be assailants, conviction u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code for death of Ramjilal is not possible. According to the learned counsel, the four injuries caused to Ramjilal were individually simple, though the doctor has deposed that the injuries cumulatively were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
(3.) FACTUALLY, in this case, Ramjilal had died three days after the incident. It was then argued by the learned counsel that inspite of the fact that the incident too place in the evening and both the deceased persons were seriosly injured, no attempt appears to have been made to give medical aid to either of them. They were simply removed to their house and kept on cots. According to the learned counsel, even on this point, in evidence there is material contradictions. Pw/3 Beeru Ram states that after the injured were removed into the house, Ramji Lal was put on a cot and Bhanwra was put on the floor, as he was already dead, whereas Pw/ Chando, who is wife of Ramjilal and mother of Bhanwara states that both of them were kept on the costs. She then states Jkr ds X;kjg cts Nksjk ej x;k** ;