The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and limitation of the right of private defence, leading to the toning down of the charge and acquittal of the accused from certain charges.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep Mehta, J.)

1. This judgment shall decide the appeal No.18/1992 preferred by the State of Rajasthan and Appeal No.206/1991 preferred by the accused for assailing the judgment dated 26.09.1991 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No.21/89 whereby, the accused persons were acquitted from the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and while toning down the offence to one under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of the IPC, both were sentenced to five years’ RI and fine of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months’ additional imprisonment. The trial court also acquitted the accused persons from the charges punishable under Sections 323 IPC in the alternative 323/34 IPC, 341 in the alternative 341/34 IPC and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. While the State of Rajasthan has approached this Court through appeal No.18/1992 for assailing acquittal of the accused from the charges referred to supra, the accused have filed appeal No.206/1991 for assailing their conviction and order of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals are noted hereinbelow:-

Ghewar Ram (PW.3) lodged a written report (Ex.P/5) to the SHO Police Station Anandpur Kalu, District Pali on 05.12.1988 at 11:45 AM alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 11 O’ Clock, the informant and his father Shri Mangilal confined the cattle owned by the accused persons while the animals were damaging the crops of the complainant. Both were proceeding to deposit the cattle in the cattle pond at which point of time, Puna Ram and Kalu Ram, residents of Lambiya armed with lathis and axes came around and started assaulting the complainant and his father. The complainant alleged that his father was inflicted numerous injuries on the head and right leg by lathis and axes as a result whereof, his father’s condition was precarious. He also alleged that he himself was caused injuries on hands and legs by the accused persons. It was further alleged in the FIR that Murali Sad and Heeralal Prajapat and few other persons intervened or else, the accused persons would have caused graver harm. The complainant got his father admitted to the hospital and thereafter proceeded to the police station for lodging the report. On the basis of this written report, formal FIR No.69/1988 (Ex.P/26) for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 323/34 IPC and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act came to be registered at the Police Station Anandpur Kalu, District Pali and investigation was commenced.

3. The medical jurist examined Mangilal as well as the first informant Ghewar Ram for the injuries suffered by them. Shri Mangilal expired while undergoing treatment upon which, the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was applied to the case. The IO recorded the statements of the witnesses. The dead body of Shri Mangilal was subjected to autopsy at the Government Hospital, Beawar at the hands of Dr.S.C. Jain who issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/19) taking note of four injuries on the body of the deceased. The head injury as well as the injury on the leg was opined to be grievous in nature. Ghewar Ram received three simple bruises and his medical report (Ex.P/6) was also prepared by Dr. S.C. Jain. The accused persons were arrested. They too were got medically examined and medical reports were prepared. Maduli, mother of the accused appellants was also medically examined and three injuries were noticed on her body as well. Upon conclusion of investigation, the IO proceeded to file charge-sheet against the accused appellants Kalu Ram and Puna Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. As the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Pali where charg