SHYAM SUNDER BYAS, J. - (1.) BY his judgment dated July 31, 1982, the learned Sessions Judge, Churu convicted and sentenced the appellant Moola Ram and Loonaram as under: S.N. Name of accused offence Under Section Sentence awarded(1) Moolaram 302, I.P.C. Imprisonment for life with afine of Rs. 50/ - in default ofthe payment of fine to furtherunder two months' R.I.(2) Loona Ram 325, I.P.C. Two years RI. with a fine ofRs. 50/ -, in default of thepayment of fine to furtherundergo two months likeimprisonment 323, I.P.C. Six months rigorous impri -sonment. Substantive sentences of appellant Loonaram were directed to run concurrently. The appellants have filed this joint appeal and challenge their conviction.
(2.) BRIEFLY recounted, the prosecution case is that the deceased -victim Khetdas Swami bad purchased a field measuring 33 Bighas from one Gajanand, situate in Rohi Pansisar P.S. Bavipura district Churu. He was in possession of it and was cultivating it at the relevant times in July, 1981. At about 9.00 a.m. on July 11, 1981, Khetdas and PW 3 Sugnaram Jat were there in the aforesaid field and were talking to raise some constructions there in. The appellants accompanied with Tulsaram and Khinyaram came there. Loonaram had a Kassi while the remaining three had lathis. They made an assault on Khetdas and Sugnaram. Accused Loonaram struck blows with the reverse side of his Kassi on the hand and back of Sugnaram. Sugnaram fell down. They, thereafter, struck blows with their weapons to Khetdas. Both the victims raised cries, hearing which PW 1 Cholaram Jat and PW 4 Loonasingh, who were working in their fields nearby, rushed to the spot. On their arrival, the four miscreants left the field. Khetdas succumbed to the injuries and passed away instantaneously on the spot. Cholaram and Loonsingh took Sugnaram to his house, from where he was taken in a camel -cart to the Police Station, Bhanipuram, where they reached at about 12 30 p.m. in the noon of the same day and verbally lodged report of the incident. The police registered a case under Sections 302, 447 and 323, I.P.C. against Loonaram, Tulsaram, Moolaram and Khinyaram. The Station House Officer Jainarain Singh (PW 10) arrived on the spot and inspected the site. The dead body of Khetdas was lying in the field. He prepared the inquest report and the Panchnama of the dead body. The post -mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted on July 12, 1981 on the spot by PW. 11 Dr. Faujdar the then Medical Officer Incharge, Government Hospital, Sardarshahar. He noticed the following injuries on the victim's dead body: (1) Swelling 6 cm. x 4 cm. on occipital region; (2) Contusion 2.5 cm. x 3 cm. on posterior wall of abdomen; (3) Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. on upper anterior 1/3 of right leg; (4) Lacerated wound 5 cm. x 1 cm. on middle anterior 1/3rd of right leg; (5) Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 3 cm. on middle anterior 1/3rd of left leg; (6) Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 2 cm. on back of heal; (7) Contusion 6 cm. x 2.5 cm. on middle lateral 1/3rd of left thigh; (8) Fracture, occipital bone, linear 3 cm. x 0.25 cm.; (9) Contusion 5 cm. x 2 cm. on right chest, Laterally at site of 5, 6 and 7th rib; (10) Contusion 6 cm. x 2 cm. on left hypochendrum; (11) Fracture of ribs 5,6, and 7th at site of injury No. 9. Injury No. 8 was the result of injury No. 1 and injury No. 11 was the result of injury No. 9. The doctor was of the opinion that Khetdas died on account of shock and haemorrhage caused by rupture of spleen and right lung. The post -mortem examination report prepared by him is Ex. P 22. The injuries of Sugnaram were also examined by Dr. Faujdar. He found two injuries caused by blunt weapon on his left fore -arm and left palm, and dorsum. On X -ray examination, fracture of ulna bone was detected, which was the result of injury No. 1. The injury report and the report of X -ray finding are Ex. P 28 and Ex. P 29. The four miscreants were rounded up and in consequence of the informations furnished by them, Kassi and lathis were recovered. After when the investigation was over the police presented a crime -sheet against Loonaram, Tulsaram, Moolaram and Khinyaram in the Court of Munsif cum -Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshahar, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302, in alternative under Section 302/34, 325/44, 323/34 and 447, I.P.C. against all of them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence taken by them was that the field in dispute was in their possession and they have been falsely implicated to deprive them of the field. They denied their complicity in the commission of the murder of Khetdas. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge recorded his findings that: (1) there was no common intention between the four accused to commit the murder of Khetdas, (2) it was accused Moolaram who had inflicted blows to Khetdas and there by caused his death. He alone was responsible for causing his death and as such, he committed the offence under Section 302, I.P.C., (3) accused Loonaram caused simple and grievous injuries to PW. 3 Sugnram, (4) accused Tulsaram and Khinyaram, though present on the spot, took no part in the incident and hence were not liable directly or vicariously, for committing the murder of Khetdas or causing injuries to Sugnaram, and (5) the field, in which the incident took place, was not in possession of Khetdas. It was in possession of the accused persons. As a result of the aforesaid findings, the accused Tulsaram and Khinyaram were acquitted of the offences they were charged with. Accused Moolram was convicted and sentenced under Section 302, I.P.C. while accused Loonaram was convicted sentenced under Sections 323 and 325, I.P.C. as mentioned at the very out -set. Aggrieved against their convictions, Moolaram and Loonaram have taken this appeal. We have heard Mr. N. Gaur learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully.
(3.) MR . Gaur did not challenge the opinion of PW 11 Dr. Faujdar relating to the cause of death of Khetdas and number and nature of injuries sustained by the injured witness Sugnaram PW 3. We have also gone through the statement of doctor Faujdar and find no reasons to distrust his opinion. The death of Khetdas was homicidal. PW 3 Sugna Ram sustained two injuries, one of which was simple and the other grievous.;