IMPORTANT POINT
Accused is not required to prove plea of private defence beyond reasonable doubt & onus is only to show that defence version was probable one.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302, 324 &: 302/34 – Two appellants with seven other accused were tried for offences under - Prosecution case was disbelieved by trial Court qua remaining seven accused Complainant party suppressed genesis of occurrence and came with a story which did not appear to be ' probable - Prosecution failed to explain injuries of both appellants Appellant No.1 had 10 injuries two of which were by sharp weapon &: were grievous - Witnesses were interested - Complainant party was charge sheeted for offence u/s 307/34 I.P.C. on complaint of accused/appellant Delay of nine days in sending F .I.R. to Magistrate provided basis to raise suspicion - Plea of self defence found probable - Conviction was unsustainable, (Paras 13 to 16)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302, 324 &: 302/34 - Right of self defence - Accused is not required to prove plea of private defence beyond reasonable doubt Onus is only to show that defence version was probable - Appellant had received ten injuries two of which were by sharp weapon eight were grievous - Prosecution failed to explain those Injuries - Appellant inflicted only one Kulhari blow on shoulder of deceased – Appellant could not be said to have exceeded right of private defence. (Para 18)
       (iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 157 - Delay in sending report to Magistrate - Is a circumstance which provides a basis to raise suspicion that F .I.R. was result of consultation &: deliberations. (Para 22)
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

B.R. Arora, J. -These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.11982 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted appellant Sawai Ram for the offences under sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 324 I.P.C. Accused-appellant Lahru was convicted for the offences under sections 302/34 and 323 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 302/34 I.P.C. and three month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and relate to the same incident, they are therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Appellants Sawai Ram and Lahru, along with seven other accused, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand for committing the murder of Jai Ram in the out-skirts of village Khatukda. The case of the prosecution was that in the morning of 25-12-1978, deceased Jai Ram and PW-I Shambhu Lalleft their village Khatukda and were going to police station, Railmagra to lodge the report against the accused party as they were not allowing them to irrigate their field through the well wherein they have sown the crop of Rizka. When they reached near Baldiya Nadi, Sawai Ram and Lahru met them and enquired from them where they were going: upon which Jai Ram replied that as you are not allowing them to irrigate their field from the well, they are, therefore, going to lodge the report against them at the Police Station. Meanwhile Ganesh, Mathura, Miya Chand, Gokul Gujar, Hari Ram Gujar, Madhu and Sri Ram, armed with Lathis, came there and exclaimed not to allow them to run and kill them. On this Lahru and Sawai Ram left their bicycles, untied the Kulhari from the bicycle and started beating him with Kulhari (Tabbal). Lahru grappled with Shambhu. Jai Ram. on receiving the injuries, fell down on the ground and when Shambhu tried to run away. Sawai Rani inflicted injury to him by the Kulhari on the shoulder. Lahru also inflicted injury by the Lathi on the back of Shambhu. Shambhu Lal ran towards the village and informed the villagers about the incident. On hearing the cries, Nana Lal, Dali Chand and Lahru s/o Jiwana (PW-19) also came there. Appellant Sawai Ram was tried for the offences under sections 302 and 324 I.P.C.; Lahru was tried for the offences under sections 302/149 and 323 I.P.C. while the remaining seven accused were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences under sections 302/ 149, 324/ 149 and 323/149 I.P.C.

3. The accused denied the prosecution case and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in. the crime. The case of accused Sawai Ram, in defence as per his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C, was that on 25-12-1978 in the morning, he along with Lahru, was going on bicycles from village Khatukda to village Sansara. When they were on their way leading to village San sara and reached near Baldiya Nadi, deceased Jai Ram. Shambhu, Nana, Mangu. Dali Chand and Lahru s/o Jiwana (PW-13), who were armed with Kulhari and Lathis and hidden themselves behind the Northern fencing of the field of Rama Bhura Regar, came from the hiding place, surrounded them and Jai Ram, who was armed with the Kulhari, inflicted injury to him by that Kulhari. The other accused also inflicted injuries to him. He tried t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTAccused is not required to prove plea of private defence beyond reasonable doubt & onus is only to show that defence version was probable one.

IMPORTANT POINT
Accused is not required to prove plea of private defence beyond reasonable doubt & onus is only to show that defence version was probable one.