GUMAN MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) IN this appeal, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellants which are as under, are being challenged: Accused Conviction R. I. Sentence Fine IN default imprison - ment. 1. Babu U/s 307, IPc 5 year's Rs. 1000/ - 6 month's R. I. 2. Chhotu U/s 326, IPc 1 year's Rs. 200/ - 2 month's R. I. U/s 325, IPc -do - -do - -do - U/s 447, IPc 15day's Nil Nil U/s 148, IPc 3 month's Nil Nil 3. Jumma U/s 325, IPc 4 years Rs. 1000/ - 4 month's R. I. 4. Yasin U/s 324, IPc 2years Rs. 200/ - 1 month's R. i 5. Immamuddin U/s 147, IPc 2 months Nil Nil U/s 148, IPc 2 months Nil Nil U/s 149, IPc 2 months Nil Nil U/s 447, IPc 15 days Nil Nil 6. Farid 7. Bhunman U/s 325,324, 147, 148,149 & 447, IPc released after admonition U/ss. 6 (1) r. w. S. 3 of Probation of Offenders 8. Trilok U/s 147, IPC Act. 9. Nanha 10. Iqbal 11. Gopi U/s 147, IPc Given benefit of S,4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and ordered to be released on furnishing personal bonds and sureties.
(2.) THE substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. A typical case of complainant party taking law in their own hands by trying to challenge the cultivation of land in possession of the accused, who had obtained injunction against the complainant party, has come to limelight during the arguments of this appeal. The trial Court in a very cursory manner, has ignored and under mind the sanctity of the injunction issued by the competent court, on untenable and frivolous grounds that after about a year of the incident that injunction was set aside by the appellate court. The decision was, therefore, merely based upon adjudication of the factual assertions on the above twin points and the implications, logical and legal, of injunction in favour of a party and against another party in matters of cultivation of agricultural field. Coming to the facts, in brief, of the prosecution case, the accused party formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and entered the field of Khasra No. 518 belonging to Govindnarain (PW9) and then started beating the complainant party with the result that Suraj (PW 4) -received 16, Govindnarain (PW 9) -12 Rambabu (PW7) - 8 - Daulatsingh (PW 2) -3, Mst. Dhapu (PW8) -4, Jagdish (PWl) -2 injuries. Out of the above, 3 injuries of Suraj, one injury of Govind and one of Daulatsingh are alleged to be grievous one. Accused party also received the injuries although the same were simple. According to the medical evidence, the injuries found on the persons of the accused party are as under; - Babu 1. Lacerated wound 2"x 1/4" x 1/8" middle of the skull. 2. Swelling 3* x 1" left shoulder. 3 Swelling 2" x 1" left side chest in the miaxlery line. 4 Abrasion 4" x 1/8" on right index finger. Jumma 1. Abrasion 1/4"x 1" right shoulder joint. 2. Abrasion 1" x 1/8" left illiac fossa. 3. Contusion 5" x 1/2" on left scapuls in its middle. 4. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/8" above the left eye brow. Hanuman 1. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/8" on right forearm in its middle. 2. Abrasion 1" x 1/8" on left heal. Immamuddin 1. Swelling 2" x 1/2" on left leg in its middle. 2. Abrasion J" x 1/8" on right wrist joint. Chhotu 1. Swelling 1" x 1/2" on right wrist joint. 2. Contusion 2" x 1/2" left scapuls. Yasmin 1. Swelling 1/4" x 1/4" left thumb, 2. Swelling 1/4" x 1/4" on right forearm in its upper one third. * 3. Contusion 5" x 2" left scapula, 4. Contusion 4" x 2" left buttock,
(3.) NOW the crucial question is whether the occurrence took place at the field, Khasra No. 518, because an effort has been made by the prosecution to change the place of occurrence to the field of Prabhu adjoining to the field Khasra No. 518. In this respect, it would be necessary to examine the statement of Prabhu (PW 6 ). Prabhu has stated that in the field, Khasra No. 518, the accused party was cultivating the field. Suddenly in his field both, the accused party and the complainant party armed with the weapons came running and the accused party started beating the complainant party. He then ran away out of fear. Contrary to it, the statement of Govindnarain (PW9) the alleged owner of Khasra No. 518, mentions a different story. According to him, the accused party had given a challenge a day earlier to the date of the occurrence that they would cultivate the field, Khasra No. 518, and therefore, he sent Dhapu (PW1) to stop them. Mst. Dhapu (PW8) and Daulatsingh (PW2) went to the Khasra No. 518 but the accused party started beating them and thereafter other part of the occurrence took place in the field of Prabhu. The investigating Officer who prepared site inspection note and has been examined as (PW16) Brijnarain, has clearly stated that the blood stained earth was found in the field, khasra No. 518, at two places and in the field of Prabhu. ;