SINGH, J. - (1.) THE appellants five in number, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track), Kota, who vide judgment dated January 28, 2002 passed in Sessions Case No. 98/2001 convicted and sentenced them as under:- Dinesh Kumar : u/s. 302 IPC: To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. u/s. 307 IPC: To suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. u/s. 324 IPC: To suffer one year's simple imprisonment. u/s. 148 and 452 IPC: To suffer two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer one month's simple imprisonment. u/s. 323/149 IPC: To suffer six month's simple imprisonment. Sattu @ Satyanarayan: u/s. 148 and 452 IPC: To suffer two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer one month's simple imprisonment. u/s. 302/149 IPC: To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment. u/s. 307/149 IPC: To suffer ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer three months' simple imprisonment. u/s. 324 IPC: To suffer one year's simple imprisonment. u/s. 323/149 IPC: To suffer six months' simple imprisonment. Sonu @ Sunil, Smt. Geeta Bai and Smt. Nirmala: u/s. 148 and 452 IPC: Each one of them to suffer two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer one month's simple imprisonment. u/s. 302/149 IPC: Each one of them to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment. u/s. 307/149 IPC: Each one of them to suffer ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer three months' simple imprisonment. u/s. 324/149 IPC: Each one of them to suffer one year's simple imprisonment. u/s. 323 IPC: To suffer six months' simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) IT is the prosecution case that informant Suresh Kumar (PW. 10) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 5) at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota on 8. 4. 2001 at about 3. 00 A. M. with the averments that his house is situated at Keshav Nagar, Kota and Babu Lal Nai was also residing in front of his house. There had been long standing enmity between them and many a times they had altercation in the past. On 7. 4. 2001 at about 11 O'clock, while the informant and his family members were sleeping in the house after bolting the door from inside, the accused Babu Lal Nai along with his wife Smt. Geeta, Dinesh, Sattu @ Satyanarayan and Sonu @ Sunil (sons) and Smt. Nirmala W/o Shri Dinesh armed with deadly weapons entered in his house. Chhitar Lal, father of the informant enquired from the accused as to why they had entered in the house. On this, Babu Lal Nai and his wife Smt. Geeta exhorted to finish them. Dinesh with the sword pierced abdomen of Chhitar Lal. Babu Lal Nai inflicted injury on the abdomen of Chhitar Lal. Uma Shankar and the informant Suresh Kumar rushed to rescue Chhitar Lal. Satyanarayan inflicted blow with iron rod on the head of Chhitar Lal. Dinesh and Satyanarayan inflicted knife injury to Uma Shankar and Vinod. While Nirmala W/o Dinesh and Smt. Geeta W/o Babu Lal and Sonu @ Sunil inflicted injuries to his father and brother with lathies and iron rod. Chhitar Lal and Uma Shankar became unconscious on the spot. On hearing hue and cry, neighbours also gathered there. Injured Uma Shankar and Chhitar Lal were taken to the hospital. Chhitar Lal succumbed to the injuries while injured Uma Shankar was admitted in the hospital. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452 and 323 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After due investigation, chargesheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track), Kota. Charges under Sections 148, 452, 302 or 302/149, 307 or 307/149, 324 or 324/149 and 323 or 323/149, IPC were framed against the appellants who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. In their explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the appellants claimed innocence. Appellant Dinesh examined himself as DW 1 under Section 315 Cr. P. C. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicted hereinabove. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and with their assistance scanned the material on record. It appears from the record that the death of Chhitar Lal was concededly homicidal in nature. As per Post Mortem report (Ex. P. 2), the following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body: 1. Stab incised wound- 3 x 1 cm x cavity deep on right hypochondrium. 2. Stab incised wound - 3 x 1 cm cavity deep loops of intestine coming out on left iliac fossa. 3. Abrassion - 3 x 2 cm on center of forehead 4. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm front of left ankle. 5. Incised wound - incised wound 3 x 1/2 cm x 1 cm Rt lobe of liver near its inferior border with haemetoma. As per the Autopsy Surgeon the death was caused due to shock as a result of ante mortem injury to liver, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life. Other members of complainant party also sustained injuries. Injury report (Ex. P. 3) of Om Shankar S/o Shri Chhitar Lal reads as under: 1. Stiched would - 4 cm long on Rt. Claviculor region. 2. Incised wound - 3 x 1/2 cm x skin deep on Rt ring finger. 3. Stiched wound - 3 cm on Lt gluteal region. 4. Stiched wound - 4 cm long on Lt. Parietal region. As per Surgeon notes, surgical emphyseina was present in chest and about 1 ltr. blood came out. Hence injury No. 1 was found dangerous to life. Vinod S/o Shri Chhitar Lal (PW. 24) vide Injury report (Ex. P. 12) received the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound : 2 x 1 cm on forehead side 2. Lacerated wound : 2 x 1 cm on fronto parietal region on left side of head. 3. Diffusive swelling on Rt. ankle.
(3.) SURESH (PW. 10) vide injury report (Ex. P. 26) received the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound - 1 x 1 cm on forehead on left side. 2. Contusion with swelling on left knee 2 x 2 cm. 3. Reddish contusion - 6 x 1 cm on left shoulder. 4. Abrasion - 2 x 2 on left left leg. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the members of the complainant party and accused party, were neighbours and there was a long standing enmity between them and that the accused Dinesh was in fact assailed by the complainant party and he was also injured and he had lodged a cross case, therefore, the accused persons who are members of the same family have been falsely implicated. A close look at the material on record demonstrates that out of the six eye witnesses examined in the case, five are members of the same family. Suresh (PW. 10), Vinod (PW. 13) and Uma Shankar (PW. 7) are the sons of deceased Chhitar Lal while Smt. Ram Janaki (PW. 2) is wife of Suresh (PW. 10) and Smt. Krishna (PW. 3) is the wife of Vinod (PW. 13 ). Other remaining witness Hanuman Prasad (PW. 6) is said to be resident of the same vicinity. Likewise, the appellants also belong to the same family as the appellant Babu Lal is the father of appellants, Satyanarayan, Dinesh and Sonu while Smt. Nirmala is wife of Dinesh and Smt. Geeta is wife of Babu Lal. The complainant and accused party are neighbours and there was admittedly a long standing enmity between them as stated in the FIR as a cause behind the incident. The fact of long standing enmity is admitted by Vinod (PW. 13) in his cross examination wherein he had admitted that he had faced a case of outraging modesty of Pooja sister of accused Dinesh and he had confessed his guilt but it has been explained that the same was done at the instance of the Judge as he was told that the case could come to an end. This witness has also admitted that disputes were going on between both the parties for last 2-3 years. He has also admitted that a case for assaulting Sonu was also lodged by accused party on 30. 6. 99 while a cross case was also lodged against them and they were bound down to keep peace for a period of one year. ;