SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS case reveals indecent behaviour of the members of General Caste who did not like Marriage procession on mare of the bride grooms belonging to Scheduled Caste. The marriage procession was therefore deadly opposed and the police had to intervene. THIS incident resulted in death of Rajpal Singh. The appellants, six in number, along with co-accused Dayal Chand, Khanga Ram, Prakash, Leela Ram and Krishna were indicated for the murder of Rajpal Singh before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Behror District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 33/1999. Learned Judge vide Judgment dated April 30, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Kailash: U/s. 302 IPC : To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer one year simple imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 100/-, n default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment. U/s. 325/149 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment. U/s. 324/149 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer two months simple imprisonment. U/s. 323/149 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. U/s. 341 IPC : To suffer simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to further suffer five days simple imprisonment. Ramavtar, Sardara, Balbir, Rajendra and Ghuda Ram : U/s. 302/149 IPC : Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer one year simple imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC : Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment. U/s. 325/149 IPC : Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment. U/s. 324/149 IPC : Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer two months simple imprisonment. U/s. 323/149 IPC : Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. U/s. 341 IPC : Each to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to further suffer five days simple imprisonment. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Co-accused Khanga Ram, Prakash, Leela Ram, Dayal Chand and Krishna were however acquitted of the charges under sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 341 IPC.
(2.) IT is prosecution case that a written report (Ex. P-4) was lodged on June 14, 1999 with the Police Station Bansoor by informant Gopi Singh (Pw. 1) to the effect that on the said day around 8. 30 p. m. when the informant together with Rajpal (now deceased) were coming back to their house after purchasing some articles, they were belaboured on the way by Kailash, Ramavtar, Balbir, Rajendra, Sardar, Ratti Ram, Ghuda, Dayala and Krishna. Pharsi-blow was inflicted by Kailash on the head of Rajpal, whereas Ghuda gave lathi-blow on the head of Gopi Singh. When Girvar Singh, Laxman Singh, Popraj Singh Billu Singh intervened Sardara gave lathi blow on the hand of Girvar. Ramavtar, Balbir and Popraj caused injuries on the person of Laxman and Ratti Ram. Police Station Bansoor on the basis of said report registered a case under sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 307 and 336 IPC and investigation commenced. During investigation Rajpal succumbed to his injuries and Section 302 IPC came to be added. Statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr. P. C. were recorded, accused were arrested, autopsy on the dead body was performed, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Behror District Alwar. Charges under sections 148, 302, 302/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149, 307/149 and 341 IPC were framed. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 21 witnesses. In the explanation under section 313 Cr. P. C. the appellants claimed innocence and stated that the complainant party intervened in the marriage procession of Nandlal and Sita Ram, who could sit on the mare only under the police protection. Complainant party did not like procession of Nand Lal and Sita Ram on the mare and because of this complainant party entered their house and beat them. Cross case therefore was registered against the complainant party. Four witnesses in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. the other co-accused were however acquitted. We have heard the rival submissions and scrutinished the record. A look at the material on record reveals that Rajpal died after two days of the incident. Prior to his death the injuries sustained by him were examined and according to injury report (Ex. P-18) following injuries were found on his person:- 1. Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm at junction of Lt. parietal & Occipital bone. 2. Bruise 2 cm x 1 cm on the back of chest. After the death of Rajpal, autopsy was performed on the dead body and as per postmortem report (Ex. P-60) following antemortem injuries were found:- 1. Abrasion 4 x 2 cm at Rt. cheek. 2. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm at Rt. eye brow with soft scab forth 3. 1 x 1/2 cm at Rt. elbow Skull: Stitches of 6 cm x placed at Lt. fronto parieto temporal region. According to Dr. N. L. Desania (Pw. 21) the cause of death was shock as a result of injury to skull and brain. Other members of the complainant party also sustained injuries. Informant Gopi Singh (Pw. 1) received following injuries vide injury report (Ex. P-4):- 1. Bruise 2 cm x 1 cm at Lt. scapular region. 2. Bruise 6 cm x 2 cm on back of chest of Ltd. side 3. Lacerated wound 1-1/2 cm x 1 cm on head of Rt. parietal bone 4. Swelling below the lt. knee joint. 5. Swelling on nose. Girvar Singh vide injury report (Ex. P-5) received on swelling at lower end of the left humerous. On x-ray no fracture was found. Billu vide injury report (Ex. P-10) received on lacerated wound of 2 cm x 1 cm on the right side of chest. Popraj Singh vide injury report (Ex. P-19) received one swelling at Rt. Lateral side of chest. Vide X-ray report (Ex. P-21) multiple fractures of ribs were found. Laxman Singh vide injury report (Ex. P-20) sustained following injuries:- 1. Linear incised wound 5 cm x 3/4 cm x 1 cm at Rt. Shoulder joint 2. Abrasion 6 cm x 2 cm at Rt. Shoulder joint 3. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm on Fore head. At this juncture it will be appropriate to consider the injuries sustained by accused party. Prabhati vide injury report (Ex. D-9) received following injuries:- 1. Swelling on the back of chest blow the scapular. 2. Bruise on the Fore arm of Rt. hand. 3. Swelling at Lt. hand of the middle of the radius unla. Laxmi vide injury report (Ex. D-10) received following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 3/4 cm on the fore head. 2. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1-1/2 cm x 1 cm on the knee joint. Saroj vide injury report (Ex. D-11) received one swelling 2 cm x 1 cm on the head. Jai Singh vide injury report (Ex. D-12) received one lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm on head at the junction of Rt. & Ltd. Parietal bone. Accused Sardara vide injury report (Ex. D-13) received following injuries:- 1. Lacerated wound 1-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm at lt. parietal bone. 2. Swelling at back of the lt. hip region.
(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that in fact the incident occurred in the house of co-accused Leela Ram. Prakash Singh (Pw. 12) categorically deposed in his cross- examination that incident occurred in the house Leela Ram. Prakash Singh further stated that Rajpal Singh was initially lying in front of the house of Basant Kumar. Thereafter he was lifted and carried away from that place. Prakash Singh also admitted that doors and windows of the house of Leela Ram and cot lying there were broken and there were many foot marks on the galary. Khurpi, Bakhri and Dantli etc. were also lying there. Even according to site plan (Ex. P-3) the incident occurred at the place, which was in front of the house of co-accused Leela Ram. IT is further canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants that as per the statement of Banshidhar SHO (Pw. 17) cross case was registered against the complainant party and accused Prabhati, Laxmi, Saroj, Jai Singh and Sardara Ram sustained injuries. Banshidhar, SHO further stated that complainant party had given beating to the accused and the incident occurred in the galary and chowk. Learned counsel fro the appellants vehemently urged that the only injury attributed to Kailash was caused in exercise of right of private defence since the complainant party inflicted blow on the forehead of his mother Laxmi. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that the appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced. Factual situation emerged from the material on record may be summarised thus:- (i) Testimony of Sumer Singh (Dw. 1), Sugan Chand (Dw. 2), Budh Ram (Dw. 3) and Ramavtar (Dw. 4) reveals that marriage procession of Sita Ram and Nand Lal who were the members of Scheduled Caste, was intervened by the complainant party. (ii) Girvar Singh (Pw. 2) in his cross-examination admitted that after the intervention by complainant party in the marriage procession, police protection was provided to the accused party. (iii) As per injury report Ex. P-18 Rajpal (deceased) sustained one incised wound at the junction of left parietal and occipital bone and the said injury was attributed to appellant Kailash. (iv) Members of accused party viz. Prabhati, Laxmi, Saroj, Jai Singh and Sardara Ram sustained injuries and cross case registered against the complainant party. (v) Although according to site plan the incident is shown to have occurred on the way but from the testimony of prosecution witnesses, it is revealed that the complainant party entered in the house of Leela Ram and free fight ensued there. (vi) Injuries sustained by the accused were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. ;