SHARMA, J. - (1.) INDER Singh and Pop Singh, appellants herein, along with co-accused Prahlad Singh, Sanwat Singh and Mahendra Singh, were put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Sikar Camp Neemka Thana, who vide judgment dated February 20, 2003, while acquitting co- accused, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- u/s. 302/34 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- , in default to further suffer imprisonment for six months. u/s. 323/34 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution story is woven like thus:- On January 15, 2000 informant Bhanwar Singh (PW. 3) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 4) at Police Station Patan stating therein that on the said day around 4 PM while he, his brother Bahadur Singh, Bhabhi Sharda and Jai Singh's wife Santra were at their house suddenly Prahlad Singh, Sanwat Singh, Mahendra Singh, Pop Singh and Inder Singh came armed with axe and Barchhi etc and made assault on Bahadur Singh and Sharda. Pop Singh and Inder Singh inflicted blows with Barchhi and axe on the person of Bahadur Singh and Sharda. When the informant and Santra intervened they were also beaten up. Bahadur Singh and Sharda were admitted to the hospital. On that report a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323 and 307 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn and statements of witnesses were recorded. After Bahadur Succumbed to the injuries Section 302 IPC was added and dead body of Bahadur Singh was subjected to autopsy. THE appellants and the co-accused were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar Camp Neemka Thana. Charges under sections 148, 323/149, 302/149 and 354 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charge and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 16 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned the Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. We have heard the contentions raised before us and with the assistance of learned counsel perused the record. Having analysed the material on record we find that Sharda (PW. 2) vide injury report (Ex. P. 2) received following injuries:- 1. Lacerated wound 1 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm lateral side of the Rt. eye 2. Lacerated wound 2 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm lateral side of the Rt. eye above Ist injury. 3. Lacerated wound 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm upper side of the Rt. eye 4. Contusion 5 x 4 (L) shoulder right side. Injuries sustained by Bahadur Singh were examined while he was admitted to the hospital vide injury report (Ex. P. 1) that reads as under:- 1. Incised wound 10 x 1 x 2 1/2 cm left parietal occipital region 2. Contusion 5 x 3 1/2 cm Rt. top of head 3. Abrasion 1 x 1/2 cm left knee joint 4. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm (R) knee joint. A look at the autopsy report (Ex. P. 3) of Bahadur Singh reveals that his death was caused due to grievous injuries on skull bone and hemorrhagic shock. Dr. Ramavtar Sharma (PW. 1) deposed that injuries sustained by the deceased were antemortem in nature and because of those injuries the death was caused. Coming to the evidence adduced at the trial by prosecution we notice that Sharda (PW. 2), wife of deceased, is the injured eye witness. In her deposition she stated that her father-in-law had five brothers. Sanvat Singh (co-accused) was one of them. Land belonging to them situated at `bihari Das ki Dhani Tan'. Sanwat Singh was not named as Khatedar of the said land. There was litigation in which her husband got the victory but he agreed to give four bighas land to Sanvat Singh. Priot to day of incident Sanvat Singh and other accused came to her house and made request to get the land entered in the name of Sanvat Singh but her husband did not agree and said that as and when all the brothers assembled, the land would be entered. On the next day around 4 PM the accused persons came armed with weapons. Sanvat Singh caught hold of her and Prahlad and Sanvat Singh gave lathi blows on her person. Inder Singh got Bahadur Singh stopped and Pop Singh inflicted blow with Barchhi on the head of Bahadur Singh, whereas Inder Singh gave axe-blow on his left foot. Mahendra Singh caused injury on his back with blunt side of axe. All the accused thereafter jointly given beating to him. Informant Bhanwar Singh (PW. 3) deposed that his father agreed to give 4 bighas of land to Sanvat Singh. When the land was not entered in the name of Sanvat Singh, quarrel ensured. On the day of incident also the accused asked to get the land matter resolved. He gave description of incident thus:-
(3.) IZGYKN] lkoar flag us 'kkjnk dks ekjk ihvka egsunz flag us fdlh dks ugha ekjha cgknqj flag dks ikapksa us ekjka** Factual situation of the case may be summarised thus:- (i) Land measuring 4 bighas belonging to accused Sanvat Singh was not handed over to him by deceased Bahadur Singh despite many requests made by Sanvat Singh. (ii) Sharda was given beating by Prahlad and Sanvat Singh, who stood acquitted by the learned trial Court and State did not assail said finding. (iii) The incident appears to have occurred all of sudden and single blow was inflicted by Pop Singh on the head of Bahadur Singh. The injury with axe on the foot attributed to Inder Singh by Sharda did not get corroboration from medical testimony. Having analysed the material on record we find that the prosecution has failed to establish charges against appellant Inder Singh beyond reasonable doubt. It appears from the testimony of Sharda and Bhanwar Singh that land measuring 4 bighas belonging to Sanvat Singh was in possession of deceased and he did not agree to give it to Sanvat Singh despite many requests made by him. On the day of incident when the request of Sanvat Singh was declined the incident occurred and Pop Singh inflicted only one blow after having got provoked from the action of Bahadur Singh. Pop Singh had knowledge that the blow inflicted by him was likely to cause death of Bahadur Singh, even though he had no intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Therefore the appellant Pop Singh is found guilty of the offence punishable under Part II of Section 304 IPC. ;