SHYAM SUNDER BYAS, J. - (1.) SINCE these two appeals: one by the appellant Ramdhan and the other by the appellants Sohan Lal, Prithviraj and Ramswaroop. are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Ganganagar dated October 30, 1976, they were heard together and are decided by a common judgment. By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused Ramswaroop under Sections 302, 307 and 307/34, accused Ramdhan under Sections 302/34, 307 and 307/34, I.P.C. and the remaining two Prithviraj and Sohan Lal under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 307/34 -109, I.P.C. and sentenced them to various terms, the longest being the imprisonment for life under Sections 302 or 302 -34 -109, I.P.C.
(2.) PUT briefly, the prosecution case is that PW 4 Maniram, PW 6 Rampratap and the appellant Sohan Lal are real brothers and reside in 5 -C Chhoti Police Station Mathili Rathan district Ganganagar. The deceased -victim Khetpal. aged about 20 years, was the son of PW 4 Maniram. Maniram and the appellant Sohan Lal purchased Murabba No. 10 comprising an area of 25 Bighas situate in Rohi Chak 5 -C Chhoti. Maniram was cultivating 10 Kilas while Sohan Lal was cultivating the remaining 15 Bighas in this Murabba No. 10, as shown in site plan Ex. P 11. In the South of this Murabba runs a Pacca Khala (water channel) as shown in site plan Ex. P 11. Maniram and accused Sohan Lal constructed a Kaccha Khala (water channel) contiguous in the North of Pacca Khala, as shown in Ex. P 11, to take water to their Murabba No. 10. Disputes arose between Maniram and Sohan Lal about the fields of this Murabba, resulting in civil, criminal and revenue litigations between them. At about 9.00 p m. on September 10, 1973, PW 4 Maniram, PW 6 Rampratap PW 1 Budhram and the deceased Khetpal went to Murabba No. 10 to irrigate the fields of Maniram. They opened an out -let in the Kaccha Khala to divert water to the fields of Maniram. Accused Sohan Lal, who was present there, forbade Maniram and others from taking and diverting water towards his fields of Murabba No. 10. Maniram and others raised protests and stated that as they had the turn to take the water to the fields of Maniram, they should be allowed to do so. Accused Sohan Lal started abusing them and cried aloud 'here are the enemies and shoot them'. Hearing his command, accused Ramswaroop Prithviraj and Ramdhan, who were hiding themselves in the standing crop of cotton, came out Ramswaroop and Ramdhan had guns, Prithviraj had a Sela and Sohan Lal had a Lathi Ram Swaroop fired a shot at Khetpal, which hit him in the chest. Khetpal fell down on the side of the main channel (Pacca Khala). Ramdhan fired a shot at Rampratap which hit him on the waist and hand. He also fell down. Budh Ram took to heels. Accused Prithviraj cried aloud and asked accused Ramswroop to shoot Budhram Ramswaroop again fired a shot which hit on the back of Budhram. Budhram also fell down. The accused thereafter retreated and went to their Dhani situate in this very Murabba No. 10. Maniram went towards the bridge of the channel where he met prosecution witnesses Pooranram, Jeet Singh and others. Pooranram brought a bullockcart in which the injured Khetpal, Rampratap and Budhram were placed. They started towards Ganganagar for medical treatment. Maniram went to Police Station, Mathili Rathan and verbally lodged report Ex. P 10 at about 11 00 p.m. on the same day. The police registered a case under Section 307, I.P.C. and proceeded with the investigation. The Station House Officer was not available at the police station. The Assistant Sub -Inspector Anoop Singh (PW 7) deputed some police constables to keep a watch on the spot of occurrence and he himself went to Government Hospital, Ganganagar. There he learnt that Khetpal had already passed away in the way when he was being taken in the bullockcart to Ganganagar. The condition of Rampratap was precarious. He got his statement recorded by a Magistrate. Meanwhile the station House Officer Swaran Ram (PW 16) also arrived at Ganganagar He prepared the inquest -report of the dead body of Khetpal and seized his bloodstained clothes. The postmortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted in the noon of September 11, 1973 by PW 8 Dr. Agrawal the then Medical Jurist, General Hospital, Ganganagar. The doctor noticed the following ante -mortem injuries on the victim's dead body: (1) Multiple gun shot wounds of entry lacerated, circular, inverted and closely situated over an area of 9' x 9' on the right lower chest anteriorly, right hypocondrium and right epigastrium i.e. right upper part of abdomen extending from the level of umbilicus to the 6th rib on right side area and just on left to the mid epigastric line (central line) to the lateral abdominal wall (mid axillary line) with bruises and abrasion oven 1/1 -2' x 3/4' area in the centre and 3/4' x 1/2' just above the umbilicus. There was no tattooing and searching. The number of the wounds could not be counted exactly but was about 120 to 130, each sized 1/8' x 1/8' with clotted blood; (2) There were two similar wounds of entry on the right side of the back of lumber region on post axillary line near the final angle; (3) Abrasion 1' x 1/2' on the lumbo sacral region of the vertibral column; (4) Abrasion 1/4' x 1/4' on the dorsum of right hand. Injuries No. 1 and 2 were found to have been caused by a fire -arm while injuries No. 3 and 4 were found to have been caused by some blunt object. In the opinion of Dr. Agrawal, the cause of death was fire arm injury with multiple shots causing perforation of the vital organs, intra -abdominal and intra -thorasic region and shock. Injury No. 1 was found sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post -mortem examination report prepared by him is Ex. P 19. Some pellets were found embedded in the victim's dead body, which were removed by the doctor. They were seized and sealed by him and were sent to the police. The injuries of Rampratap (PW 6) and Budhram (PW 1) were also examined by Dr. Agrawal on September 11, 1973. Four injuries caused by a fire -arm were found on the person of Rampratap Multiple scattered wounds caused by a firearm and two abrasions were found on the person of Budhram. Their injury reports are Ex. P 17 and Ex. P 18.
(3.) THE Station House Officer Swaran Ram visited the spot on September 11, 1973, inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex. P 11. He found two fired and one live cartridges and two wads on the spot. He also found marks of blood on the wall of the channel, but they were not capable of being lifted. The appellants were arrested and in consequence of the informations furnished by them, guns and pistols were recovered. The guns and cartridges were sent to the Ballistic Expert for scientific examination. The scientific examination revealed that the empty cartridges found on the spot were fired from the gun recovered in consequence of the information furnished by accused Ramswaroop. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a crime report against all the appellants in the Court of Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Ganganagar, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The cape came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who framed charges under Sections 302, 302/34 -109, and 307/34 -109, I.P.C. against all of them, to which they pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. Accused Sohan Lal, Prithviraj and Ramdhan denied their complicity in the commission of the offence. According to them, they were not on the spot at the time of the alleged incident. Accused Ram Swaroop advanced a counter story in his statement under Section 313. Cr. P.C. He deposed that at about 9.00 p.m. on September 10, 1973, he and the members of his family were in his Dhani situate in Murabba No. 10. Maniram Khetpal, Rampratap, Budhram and some other persons came there and started firing. He sent his daughter -in -law Smt. Rameshwari to find out what was the matter. The aforesaid persons fired a shot at her, as a result of which she sustained multiple injuries. When the site was inspected by the investigating officer, he had noticed some pellets embedded in the wall of his Dhani. In support of its case the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the prosecution story substantially true and the charges duly proved against the appellants. He found no substance in the defence put forward by them. The appellants were consequently convicted and sentenced, as mentioned at the very outset. Aggrieved against their conviction, they have taken these appeals.;