Sharma, J.—The appellant Atraj and his son Sugharsingh have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur under sec. 308 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Manka. Sugharsingh accused has also been convicted and sentenced under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case for the prosecution was that on the 24th of October, 1949, sometime in the afternoon, some cattle of Atraj appellant got into the filed of Manka who rounded them up and was driving them towards the cattle pond when Mst. Javitri, sister of the appellant Atraj raised a hue and cry that their cattle were being taken away. On this the appellant Atraj and his three sons, Chota, Mohansingh and Sugharsingh came armed with lathis and began to beat Manka alias Manakchand. Manka called out his brother Poorna who was in a field nearby for help and Mst. Javitri as well as the four accused mentioned above, left Manka and ran towards Poorna. Poorna was at that time sleeping in a bagia of him and there he was badly belaboured by Atraj and his three sons. Of the two, Poorna got a very large number of injuries and had to be taken to the police station on a charpoy. A report was made at the police station, Rajakhera, which is at a distance of about a mile from the place of occurrence. The police took the investigation in hand and got the two injured persons Manka and Poorna examined at Rajakhera Hospital. Mst, Javitri, Atraj and Chotey were also medically examined at the same hospital. Injuries were found on the body of all these five persons. Before the case was challaned. an application was also made on behalf of Manak before the Circle Inspector on the 30th October, 1949, complaining that the police was not properly investigating the case and the Circle Inspector himself should go to the spot and investigate the case.

3. The case was ultimately challanged by the police against Mst, Javitri, Atraj, Chotey, Sugharsingh and Mohansingh under secs. 308 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of Shri Karansingh, Magistrate First Class, Dholpur. On the complaint or Mst. Javitri, a case was also started against Poorna and Manka under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code. In the challan case, Mst. Javitri was discharged by the learned Committing Magistrate and the four accused Atraj, Chotey Sugharsingh and Mohansingh were committed to take their trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, under sec. 308 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the case started on the complaint of Mst. Javitri, the two accused Poorna and Manka were committed to take their trial under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code before the same Sessions Court.

4. The challaned case started on the report of Manka was criminal case No. 18 of 1950 and the complaint case against Poorna and Manka was criminal case No. 19 of 1950. The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the evidence separately in both the cases, but decided both of them by one judgment. In the case against Poorna and Manka, the two accused were acquitted while in the challan case against Atraj, Sugharsingh and others, Mohansingh was acquitted and Atraj and Sugharsingh were convicted under sec. 308 read with sec. 34 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- each. Under sec. 323, only Sugharsingh was convicted and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences of imprisonment of Sugharsingh were made concurrent. Chotey, the fourth accused deed during the pendency of the case.

5. In this appealon behalf of Sugharsingh and Atraj, it has been argued by the counsel Mr. D. K. Soral, that the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is based not only on the evidence recorded in the case No. 18 of 1950 but also on the evidence recorded in the counter case No. 19 of 1950. It was argued that it could not be said as to what extent the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been infl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document