L.S.MEHTA, J. - (1.) BY his judgment, dated May 26, 1966, learned Sessions Judge Jaipur District, Jaipur, convicted Gangaram. Gheesha s/o Daula; Parsia, Chhotia, and Harchand under Section 304, part II, read with Section 149, I.P.C, and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for three years each. The above accused were further held guilty under Section 147, Penal Code, and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Phulia, Sagaria, Chandgi, and Sunda were convicted under Section 147, I.P.C, and each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ -, in default of payment of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Each of the four accused was also found guilty and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323, read with Section 149, I.P.C. The sentences on the two counts were ordered to run concurrently. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the rest of the accused persons, namely Rameshwar, Manshia, Bhagwana s/o Sewa Nathu, Hira s/o Ranjeeta, Bhagwana s/o Ranjeeta, Rura; Narain Gujar, Gheesa s/o Sadhu, Gheesa s/o Bholu and Hira s/o Tamola.
(2.) SUCCINCTLY put the prosecution story is that Mukhlia Bavari (deceased) and his family consisting of three sons, namely, Prahlad, Hanuman and Mahadeo, his wife Mst. Ghandi, and his sons Prahlad's wife Mst. Rampati lived in village Kharkbari. The accused persons also resided in the same village. The villagers wanted the three sons of Mukhlia to keep watch over the crops growing in their fields, situate in the vicinity of the village in the year 1964 -65, as they had been doing hitherto. It is alleged that on December 1, 1934, the above named three sons of Mukhlia were called by the villagers at 'Paras' and were asked to keep watch over their crops. The sons of Mukhlia demanded grain from the people in lieu of iheir past services. But the villagers did not agree to part with grain. Thereupon Prahlad and his two brothers Mahadeo and Hanuman refused to undertake the work and they returned home. On their way back Harchand met them in front of his house. He caught hold of the neck of Mahadeo Another person Sagaria pulled his hand, Phulia alto gave beating to him. Rarrpati w/o Prahlad rescued him. Harchand gave a lathi blow to her. Mukhlia's family members wanted to report this incident to the police. The villagers told them not to do so, lest their lives would be in peril. On December 2, 1964, at about 8 a.m., Harchand and Sultan went lo the house of Mukhlia and told his three sons that they were called by Gangaram, Parsia and Gheesa. But they declined to meet them. Harchand and Sultan then returned to the 'Paras' and raised a cry that the Bavaris had the audacity to defy them. Thereafter, Gangaram, Gheesa, Parsia Chhotia, and Harchand rushed to the Bavarias' house. Harchand had a' lathi with him and the rest of the accused were armed with 'Pharsis'. Gangaram gave a 'Pharsi' blow with its wooden handle on Mukhlia's h, ad a s a result of which Mukhlia sustained a fracture on his head. Harchand also gave a lathi blow on the arm of Mukhlia, causing a fracture to it. The other three persons also administered beating with 'Pharsis' to Mukhlia. Mukhlia fell down and died on the spot. Soon after Phulia Sagaria. Chandgi, Sundia and others came to the residence of Bavaris and dealt various lathi blows to Hanuman, P.W. 2, Mahadeo, P.W. 3, Prahlad, P.W. 4, Mst. Rampati, P.W. 5, and Mst. Chandi, P.W. 6. It is further alleged that Harchand s/o. Sundaram Jat had lodged a report at the police station, Kotputli, alleging that Hanuman, Prahlad and Mahadeo had committed theft of his two bullocks and when they had been caught red handed, they had given beating to him. When that report had been lodged by Harchand, Satyapal, Head Constable, police Station, Kotputli, proceeded to the place of occurrence in connection with investigation of the theft case. In the village Head Constable, Satyapal, found the dead body of Mukhlia Bavari and when he was apprised of the whole incident, he immediately took in hand the investigation of Mukhlia's murder. He sent the dead body of Mukhlia for post mortem examination to Dr. Y.S Mathur, Medical Officer, Kotputli, P.W. 1. The Doctor noticed the following injuries on the person of Mukhlia: External: 1. Constused wound 1' X 1' X scalp deep left side of head 2' above the ear. 2. Fracture by humerus at about its middle displacement. 3. Slight swelling of the whole of right arm. Internal: 1. Haemtoma below external injury No. 1 occupying postero lateral part of vertex on left side. 2. Fissured fracture of left parietal 4' long. 3. Fissured fracture of 1' parietal occipital subture on right side of occipital reaching the ear level 7' long. 4. Fissured fracture of left parietal 2' long radiating from injur No. 3 2' from its anterior end going up. 5. Membrain and brain congested. 6. Laceration of right aim muscle round fractured humerus. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was coma, as a result of the fracture of the scalp bone,. The death of the deceased took place about 24 hours prior to the post -mortem examination. The Doctor is further of the opinion that internal injuries Nos. 1 to 4 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Doctor also examined Prahlad, son of Mukhlia. He found 20 injuries on his person. They were simple in nature and were caused by blunt weapon. The injury report is Ex. P. 2. The Medical Officer then examined Mst. Rampati w/o Prahlad. He found 7 injuries on her person. All of them were simple in nature except injury No. 1, which was grievous. The injuries were caused by a blunt weapon The injury report of Mst. Rampati is Ex. P. 3. Later, the Doctor examined Mst. Chandi w/o Mukhlia and he. found 3 simple injuries on her person. Thereafter Dr. Mathur examined Mst. Chandra Kanta, daughter of Prahlad. He saw two simple injuries on her person. The injury report is marked Ex. P. 5. Hanuman s/o Mukhlia was also examined by the Doctor and he found 15 simple injuries on his person. His injury report is Ex. P. 7. Ultimately, Mahadeo s/o Mukhlia was examined by the same Doctor and it was noticed that he sustained 18 injuries which were simple in nature The injury report is marked Ex. P. 8. On Dec. 28, 1964, X ray examination of Hanuman was conducted and after screening the Doctor found a fracture on the left ulna X ray report is marked Ex. P. 9. It may also be mentioned here that the accused Harchand was medically examined on Dec 2, 1964 by the same Doctor. Nine simple injuries were found on his person. They were all caused with blunt object. The injury report is marked Ex. P. 6. After completing necessary investigation the police put up a challan in the court of the Munsiff -Magistrate, Kot -Putli. The said Magistrate conducted preliminary inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Section 207A. Cr.P.C., and committed the accused to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, for trial.
(3.) THE trial Judge charged Gangaram, Gheesa, s/o Daula, Parsia, Ghhotia and Harchand Under Sections 302, 148 and 325, read with Section 149, I.P.C. The other accused persons, including Phulia, Sagaria, Chandgi and Sundia, were indicted under Section 302 read with Sections 149, 325, read with Section 149, and under Section 147, I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. In support of its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The accused made total denial of the offences, with which they stood charged. In his defence of alibi, Parsia examined Ghisaram. D.W. 1. and Phulia produced Badluram, D.W. 2. Eventually the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid.;